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 23:23, 9 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

"Abstract

"Controversy is a complex concept that has been attracting attention of scholars from diverse fields. In the era of Internet and social media, detecting controversy and controversial concepts by the means of automatic methods is especially important. Web searchers could be alerted when the contents they consume are controversial or when they attempt to acquire information on disputed topics. Presenting users with the indications and explanations of the controversy should offer them chance to see the “wider picture” rather than letting them obtain one-sided views. In this work we first introduce a formal model of controversy as the basis of computational approaches to detecting controversial concepts. Then we propose a classification based method for automatic detection of controversial articles and categories in Wikipedia. Next, we demonstrate how to use the obtained results for the estimation of the controversy level of search queries. The proposed method can be incorporated into search engines as a component responsible for detection of queries related to controversial topics. The method is independent of the search engine’s retrieval and search results recommendation algorithms, and is therefore unaffected by a possible filter bubble.
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 social science researchers for understanding the complex nature of controversy and in fostering their studies."[1]
full width content
  1. ^ Zielinski, Kazimierz; Nielek, Radoslaw; Wierzbicki, Adam; Jatowt, Adam. "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 learn their 'stuff' by editing

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

Reviewed by Barbara Page

Abstract:

"ABSTRACT Wikipedia is a widely used resource by university students, but it is not necessarily regarded as being reliable and trustworthy by them, nor is it seen as a context in which to make content contributions. This paper presents a teaching and research project that consisted in having students edit or create Wikipedia articles and testing whether or not this experience changed their perceived value of the platform. We conducted our experience at Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, Spain) and University of Niš (Niš, Serbia) with a total number of 240 students. These students edited articles and answered two questionnaires, one before and one after the exercise. We compared the pre and post experience answers to the questionnaires with a series of paired samples t-tests, through which our data showed that students did significantly change their perception of reliability and usefulness, and of likeliness of finding false information on Wikipedia. Their appreciation of the task of writing Wikipedia articles, in terms of it being interesting and challenge also increased. They did not significantly change, however, their judgement on the social value of the platform, neither in the university nor in the general context. In addition, the open questions and informal feedback allowed us to gather valuable insights towards the evaluation of the overall experience."[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

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

Reviewed by Barbara Page
"Abstract Although primarily an encyclopedia, Wikipedia’s expansive content provides a knowledge base that has been continuously exploited by researchers in a wide variety of domains. This article systematically reviews the scholarly studies that have used Wikipedia as a data source, and investigates the means by which Wikipedia has been employed in three main computer science research areas: information retrieval, natural language processing, and ontology building. We report and discuss the research trends of the identified and examined studies. We further identify and classify a list of tools that can be used to extract data from Wikipedia, and compile a list of currently available data sets extracted from Wikipedia"[1]

If anyone ever wanted a fairly comprehensive list of research articles published about how things are measured, this article is valuable. It describes how data is gathered and used. One of the advantages of Wikipedia is its size and the parameters that can be lifted out of articles.

  1. ^ Mehdi, Mohamad; Okoli, Chitu; Mesgari, Mostafa; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto. "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.

"Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses"

Reviewed by Barbara Page

"Abstract Systematically biased editing, persistently maintained, can occur on Wikipedia while nominally following guidelines. Techniques for biasing an entry include deleting positive material, adding negative material, using a one-sided selection of sources, and exaggerating the significance of particular topics. To maintain bias in an entry in the face of resistance, key techniques are reverting edits, selectively invoking Wikipedia rules, and overruling resistant editors. Options for dealing with sustained biased editing include making complaints, mobilizing counterediting, and exposing the bias. To illustrate these techniques and responses, the rewriting of my own Wikipedia entry serves as a case study. 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". Social Science Computer Review. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

"Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior"

Reviewed by Barbara Page

"ABSTRACT In this multi-method study, we examine citation activity on English-language Wikipedia to understand how information claims are supported in a non-scientific open collaboration context. We draw on three data sources—edit logs, interview data, and document analysis—to present an integrated interpretation of citation activity and found pervasive themes related to controversy and conflict. Based on this analysis, we present and discuss information fortification as a concept that explains online citation activity that arises from both naturally occurring and manufactured forms of controversy. This analysis challenges a workshop position paper from Group 2005 by Forte and Bruckman, which draws on Latour’s sociology of science and citation to explain citation in Wikipedia with a focus on credibility seeking. We discuss how information fortification differs from theories of citation that have arisen from bibliometrics scholarship and are based on scientific citation practices."[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)
← 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,[1] and it is natural for humans to be blind to their own biases; we tend to suffer from confirmation biases[2][3] 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. ^ 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)
  2. ^ 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)
  3. ^ 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]
Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-02-20/Recent_research&oldid=824860080"