Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-20/Recent research

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost‎ | 2018-02-20

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barbara (WVS) (talk | contribs) at 11:12, 19 February 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

Recent research

2018 research studies begin making their appearance

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Barbara Page and ...
Controversy is an organized sport for some editors but may alert readers that there is more than one view on a topic.

The study of controvery

"Computing controversy: Formal model and algorithms for detecting controversy on Wikipedia and in search queries"

Reviewed by Barbara Page

Applying a mathematical model to Wikipedia talk page controversies has the potential of incorporating a 'controversy' metric in web-searches. This should give those searching for information on a topic to quickly assess controversial topics. Wikipedia provides researchers with accessible and historical controversial discussions. The authors further describe their work: "[Assessing] the controversy should offer [readers] a chance to see the “wider picture” rather than letting [them] obtain one-sided views." The authors' conclusions were: "Our approach can be also applied in Wikipedia or other knowledge bases for supporting the detection of controversy and content maintenance. Finally, we believe that our results could be useful for...understanding the complex nature of controversy..."[1]

  1. ^ Zielinski, Kazimierz; Nielek, Radoslaw; Wierzbicki, Adam; Jatowt, Adam (2018). "Computing controversy: Formal model and algorithms for detecting controversy on Wikipedia and in search queries". Information Processing & Management. 54 (1): 14–36. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2017.08.005.

Students edit but still doubt the value of Wikipedia

"Wikipedia in higher education: Changes in perceived value through content contribution"

Reviewed by Barbara Page

Students are a convenient group to study, especially if being studied is part of the syllabus. The 240 students in this study readily admitted to using Wikipedia as a resource even though they did not be consider it to be 'reliable and trustworthy'. Using Wikipedia as a resource does not necessarily encourage content contributions by students. In addition, when the students in this study actually added content, their perceptions of the reliability and usefulness of Wikipedia did not change.[1]

  1. ^ Soler-Adillon, Joan; Pavlovic, Dragana; Freixa, Pere (2018). "Wikipedia in higher education: Changes in perceived value through content contribution". Comunicar (in Spanish). 26 (54): 39–48. doi:10.3916/c54-2018-04. ISSN 1134-3478. English version here

Researching the research

"Excavating the mother lode of human-generated text: A systematic review of research that uses the Wikipedia corpus"

Reviewed by Barbara Page

The amount of research that uses Wikipedia as a source of data continues to grow and enough scholarly content now exists that systematic reviews are available. Computer science has especially been quick to see the potential of this 'mother lode' and how it can be used to study information retrieval, natural language processing, and ontology building. The reference section in this article itself makes interesting reading if only to appreciate the collection of data sets and other research that that exists and continues to expand.[1]

  1. ^ Mehdi, Mohamad; Okoli, Chitu; Mesgari, Mostafa; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto (2017). "Excavating the mother lode of human-generated text: A systematic review of research that uses the wikipedia corpus" (PDF). Information Processing & Management. 53 (2): 505–529. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2016.07.003.

Sneaky editing and masking bias

"Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses"

Reviewed by Barbara Page

Apparently, Wikipedia editors are not the only ones who have observed biased editing. The author of this research article used his own article as a case study and example of biased editing. It is no surprise that an editor can 'nominally' follow editing guidelines to maintain their bias. Here is the 'how to' on such behavior:

  • deleting positive material
  • adding negative material
  • using a one-sided selection of sources
  • exaggerating the significance of references and topics

Those who are biased sometimes support their editing even in 'the face of resistance'. This is done by:

  • reverting edits
  • selectively invoking Wikipedia rules
  • overruling (bullying?) resistant editors

When bias is challenged by other editors, the strategies for dealing with it is making complaints, 'mobilizing counterediting', and exposing the bias. The authors' stinging conclusion speaks for itself: "It is worthwhile becoming aware of persistent bias and developing ways to counter it in order for Wikipedia to move closer to its goal of providing accurate and balanced information."[1]

  1. ^ Martin, Brian (2017). "Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses" (PDF). Social Science Computer Review.

Seeking credibility

"Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior"

Reviewed by Barbara Page

This study is a rebuttal to another position paper by Forte and Bruckman related to the use of citations on Wikipedia. Citing sources is associated with other issues of bias and identifies the patterns used to in citing sources to encourage and even fabricate controversy. This study was limited to non-scientific topics and used data derived from edit logs, interviews and text analysis. "[I]nformation fortification [is] a concept that explains online citation activity that arises from both naturally occurring and manufactured forms of controversy."[1]

  1. ^ Forte, Andrea; Andalibi, Nazanin; Gorichanaz, Tim; Kim, Meen Chul; Park, Thomas; Halfaker, Aaron (2018-01-07). "Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior" (PDF). ACM: 83–92. doi:10.1145/3148330.3148347. ISBN 9781450355629. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Conferences and events

See the research events page on Meta-wiki for upcoming conferences and events, including submission deadlines.

Other recent publications

Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. contributions are always welcome for reviewing or summarizing newly published research.:Compiled by [[User:|User:]]

  • "Title of article"<ref></ref> From the abstract: "snippets" and below:
  • "Time-focused analysis of connectivity and popularity of historical persons in Wikipedia"[1] From the abstract: "Our study sheds new light on the characteristics of information about historical people recorded in the English Wikipedia and quantifies user interest in such data. We propose a novel style of analysis in which we use signals derived from the hyperlink structure of Wikipedia as well as from article view logs, and we overlay them over temporal dimension to understand relations between time periods, link structure and article popularity."


← Previous "Recent research"
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • Response to: Politically diverse editors and article quality. "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds"
Amen to that! I have long believed this and formulated it this way:
Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."

-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR
The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view. Everyone is biased,[2] and it is natural for humans to be blind to their own biases; we tend to suffer from confirmation biases[3][4] and the Dunning–Kruger effect. Therefore other editors provide an important counterbalancing service when they spot and correct the consequences of our biased editing. When pointing out such editing errors, it is important to follow the Golden Rule and assume good faith in fellow editors. No one is perfect. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Old issue indeed, plenty of research is available. The Wisdom of Crowds argues that crowd is wise only as long as it's diverse, while polarization is not necessary and may be harmful. --Nemo 11:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Getting a bunch of people together who already hold the same POV doesn't create much improvement. We all need each other. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jatowt, Adam; Kawai, Daisuke; Tanaka, Katsumi (2018-02-08). "Time-focused analysis of connectivity and popularity of historical persons in Wikipedia". International Journal on Digital Libraries: 1–19. doi:10.1007/s00799-018-0231-4. ISSN 1432-1300 1432-5012, 1432-1300. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)Closed access icon
  2. ^ Johnson, Carolyn Y. (February 5, 2013), Everyone is biased: Harvard professor’s work reveals we barely know our own minds, Boston.com, retrieved December 12, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ Phelps, Marcy (June 5, 2015), Are your biases showing? Avoiding confirmation bias in due diligence investigations, Phelps Research, retrieved November 15, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ Yanklowitz, Shmuly (October 3, 2013), Confirmation Bias and the Ethical Demands of Argumentation, The Huffington Post, retrieved November 15, 2015 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • In American political topics, "right wing" editors are sanctioned or banned at a higher rate, and often lower threshold, than the "left wing" editors. According to this first article this will eventually start to have a negative effect on our article balance. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cause for thought. Those editors should be more compliant with our policies and stop pushing fringe theories and using unreliable sources. That would help the problem, because we don't want disruptive editors here. Banning them is a net plus for an accurate encyclopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case in point: assertion not backed by facts. How is the term "right wing editor" defined? For example, I consider my own political views left of center in terms of US politics, yet I am very aware that they would be considered centrist or even right of center in terms of European politics. And how can you prove that editors of one particular POV are "sanctioned or banned" more often than those of any other POV? -- llywrch (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without evidence for any biased reason why some would be banned more than others, I just assume a certain amount of good faith in our processes, ergo, there are more of one type who are misbehavin'. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure we cover what matters to you — leave a suggestion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-02-20/Recent_research&oldid=826483888"