Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Eric Luth]

Thanks all for your great examples! Very helpful – and also interesting to
follow.

Best,
*Eric Luth*
Projektledare engagemang och påverkan | Project Manager, Involvement and
Advocacy
Wikimedia Sverige
eric.l...@wikimedia.se
+46 (0) 765 55 50 95

Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige.
Läs mer på blimedlem.wikimedia.se


Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 22:35 skrev Jonathan Morgan <
jonnymorgan@gmail.com>:

> A few more for consideration:
>
> Keegan et al.'s work on how editors collaborate around breaking news events
>  (I expect
> this to get cited a lot in the next year or so, with increased interest in
> the role of Wikipedia in combating COVID disinformation)
>
> Forte et al's work on the way emergent, nested institutions within
> Wikipedia function
>  and their
> key role in supporting content quality and distributed decision-making.
> Lots of great theory-building, and an excellent example of the depth of
> insight that qualitative research can produce.
>
> In terms of newer stuff, I really admire Marc Miquel-Ribe and David
> Laniado's methodology for mapping gaps in Wikipedia content across
> languages
> . And I
> think their starting point (what is the Wikipedia content that naturally
> belongs within the "cultural context" of a group of language speakers?) is
> maybe the best approach I've found for tackling the thorny questions around
> defining and addressing knowledge gaps.
>
> Also in terms of newer stuff... the Wikimedia Research showcase page
>  is a great
> place to start one's explorations :)
>
> - Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:23 AM Morten Wang  wrote:
>
> > In the human-computer interaction field, I'd highlight three seminal
> > papers:
> >
> > Viégas and Wattenberg's 2004 paper established Wikipedia as an area of
> > study, and used novel visualization techniques to demonstrate how quickly
> > vandalism is removed from the encyclopedia. Back in 2004, the main
> research
> > question was probably "how does this thing even work?", particularly with
> > regards to combating vandalism, and this paper starts the path of
> answering
> > that question.
> >
> > Priedhorsky et al's 2007 paper dug into authorship of content that is
> > viewed, giving us good insights into the "who writes Wikipedia?"
> question.
> > It asks some important questions around what "value" is in a
> > peer-production community like Wikipedia (is content that is viewed more
> > often more valuable?) There's also some cool methodological aspects of
> this
> > paper (it uses MD5 checksums for revert detection, and there's now SHA1
> > checksums for all revision in Wikipedia's API).
> >
> > Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
> > community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
> > processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming
> in
> > with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
> > good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do
> quality
> > assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
> > struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
> > also the Teahouse paper).
> >
> > Another question that I find really interesting and that is perhaps often
> > overlooked is "why did Wikipedia succeed?" It's easy to think that there
> > were few or no other competitors in the online encyclopedia space at the
> > time it got started, but there were a bunch of them. Mako Hill's PhD
> thesis
> > has a chapter that looks at that
> > , and he also
> > gave
> > a talk at the Berkman Klein Center
> >  about this.
> >
> > One thing I've noticed is that all the papers I'm referencing focus on
> the
> > English Wikipedia. When it comes to studies of other language editions,
> or
> > across multiple ones, I've struggled to come up with a key paper to point
> > to. Hopefully someone else chimes in and fills that hole, as it's
> important
> > to recognize that "Wikipedia" doesn't equal the English one.
> >
> > Cited papers:
> >
> >- Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004, April). Studying
> >cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow
> > visualizations.
> >In *Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
> >systems* (pp. 575-582).
> >- Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., Lam, S. T. K., Panciera, K., Terveen,
> L., &
> >Riedl, J. (2007, November). Creating, destroying, and restoring value
> in
> >Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on
> >Supporting group work* (pp. 259-268).
> >- 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Eric Luth]

Thanks for your reply, Jana. Very interesting results!

Will be happy to share the final article when it is ready.

Best
*Eric Luth*
Projektledare engagemang och påverkan | Project Manager, Involvement and
Advocacy
Wikimedia Sverige
eric.l...@wikimedia.se
+46 (0) 765 55 50 95

Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige.
Läs mer på blimedlem.wikimedia.se


Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 19:33 skrev Gallus, Jana <
jana.gal...@anderson.ucla.edu>:

> Re. non-English Wikipedia and editor retention:
> I ran a large-scale field experiment in and *with* the community of Swiss
> editors. We show that purely symbolic awards that provide social
> recognition increase newcomer retention by 20%, and the effect persists for
> over a year after initial award receipt:
>
> Gallus, J. (2017). "Fostering public good contributions with symbolic
> awards: A large-scale natural field experiment at Wikipedia
> ."
> Management Science 63(12): 3999-4015.
>
> Would you mind sharing the eventual article with us? I greatly enjoyed
> following this thread and look forward to the article.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 18th, 2020 at 5:44 AM, Eric Luth 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> A Swedish professor is writing a piece on Wikipedia for Sweden's largest
>> daily newspaper, for the upcoming 20 years anniversary. She asked me for
>> "interesting and widespread studies" on Wikipedia – not necessarily within
>> any certain focus.
>>
>> If you would share 2 or 3 studies, that have gained some attention and
>> that
>> you find interesting, which would these be?
>>
>> Would be very happy for any help!
>>
>> Best
>> *Eric Luth*
>> Projektledare engagemang och påverkan | Project Manager, Involvement and
>> Advocacy
>> Wikimedia Sverige
>> eric.l...@wikimedia.se
>> +46 (0) 765 55 50 95
>>
>> Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige.
>> Läs mer på blimedlem.wikimedia.se
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Jonathan Morgan]

A few more for consideration:

Keegan et al.'s work on how editors collaborate around breaking news events
 (I expect
this to get cited a lot in the next year or so, with increased interest in
the role of Wikipedia in combating COVID disinformation)

Forte et al's work on the way emergent, nested institutions within
Wikipedia function
 and their
key role in supporting content quality and distributed decision-making.
Lots of great theory-building, and an excellent example of the depth of
insight that qualitative research can produce.

In terms of newer stuff, I really admire Marc Miquel-Ribe and David
Laniado's methodology for mapping gaps in Wikipedia content across languages
. And I
think their starting point (what is the Wikipedia content that naturally
belongs within the "cultural context" of a group of language speakers?) is
maybe the best approach I've found for tackling the thorny questions around
defining and addressing knowledge gaps.

Also in terms of newer stuff... the Wikimedia Research showcase page
 is a great
place to start one's explorations :)

- Jonathan



On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:23 AM Morten Wang  wrote:

> In the human-computer interaction field, I'd highlight three seminal
> papers:
>
> Viégas and Wattenberg's 2004 paper established Wikipedia as an area of
> study, and used novel visualization techniques to demonstrate how quickly
> vandalism is removed from the encyclopedia. Back in 2004, the main research
> question was probably "how does this thing even work?", particularly with
> regards to combating vandalism, and this paper starts the path of answering
> that question.
>
> Priedhorsky et al's 2007 paper dug into authorship of content that is
> viewed, giving us good insights into the "who writes Wikipedia?" question.
> It asks some important questions around what "value" is in a
> peer-production community like Wikipedia (is content that is viewed more
> often more valuable?) There's also some cool methodological aspects of this
> paper (it uses MD5 checksums for revert detection, and there's now SHA1
> checksums for all revision in Wikipedia's API).
>
> Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
> community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
> processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming in
> with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
> good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do quality
> assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
> struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
> also the Teahouse paper).
>
> Another question that I find really interesting and that is perhaps often
> overlooked is "why did Wikipedia succeed?" It's easy to think that there
> were few or no other competitors in the online encyclopedia space at the
> time it got started, but there were a bunch of them. Mako Hill's PhD thesis
> has a chapter that looks at that
> , and he also
> gave
> a talk at the Berkman Klein Center
>  about this.
>
> One thing I've noticed is that all the papers I'm referencing focus on the
> English Wikipedia. When it comes to studies of other language editions, or
> across multiple ones, I've struggled to come up with a key paper to point
> to. Hopefully someone else chimes in and fills that hole, as it's important
> to recognize that "Wikipedia" doesn't equal the English one.
>
> Cited papers:
>
>- Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004, April). Studying
>cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow
> visualizations.
>In *Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
>systems* (pp. 575-582).
>- Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., Lam, S. T. K., Panciera, K., Terveen, L., &
>Riedl, J. (2007, November). Creating, destroying, and restoring value in
>Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on
>Supporting group work* (pp. 259-268).
>- Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., Morgan, J. T., & Riedl, J. (2013). The
>rise and decline of an open collaboration system: How Wikipedia’s
> reaction
>to popularity is causing its decline. *American Behavioral Scientist*,
>*57*(5), 664-688.
>- Morgan, J. T., Bouterse, S., Walls, H., & Stierch, S. (2013,
>February). Tea and sympathy: crafting positive new user experiences on
>wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported
>cooperative work* (pp. 839-848).
>Hill, Benjamin Mako. “Essays on Volunteer Mobilization in Peer
>Production.” Ph.D. Dissert

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[fn]

In Wikidata we have annotated 1873 items (articles, books, etc.) as 
about Wikipedia. Some of them are listed in Scholia:

https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52

Halfaker et al's "2013" paper, as mentioned, I would also mention.

Apart from that there is the famous Nature editorial article "Internet 
encyclopaedias go head to head" from 2005 which may have contributed to 
Wikipedia rise. I think it is the most cited Wikipedia study. It has 
3182 Google Scholar citations. And it is the most cited study among the 
Wikipedia works in Wikidata.



best regards
Finn



On 18/12/2020 18.23, Jeremy Foote wrote:

When it comes to understanding relationships between multiple language
editions, I think that Bao et al.'s work on Omnipedia has a bunch of great
insights for how to think about and measure relationships between content
in different editions.

Bao, P., Hecht, B., Carton, S., Quaderi, M., Horn, M., & Gergle, D. (2012).
Omnipedia: Bridging the wikipedia language gap. *Proceedings of the 2012
ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 1075–1084.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2208516.2208553

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Johan Jönsson  wrote:


Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 16:23 skrev Morten Wang :



Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming

in

with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do

quality

assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
also the Teahouse paper).



I think we need to start recommending it with a short explanation on
current trends and mention that it describes a piece of Wikipedia history
(where the mechanics behind the trend could still be relevant). You see the
same curve in a number of other languages (especially languages mainly
spoken in northern Europe), and like English they've typically flattened
out, English already around 2014, other number of languages with a similar
trend around 2018, yet we can still read that the Wikipedia editorship is
in decline in the present tense in papers and articles on English Wikipedia
published in 2020, referencing The Rise and Decline.

//Johan Jönsson
--
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Jana Gallus]

Re. non-English Wikipedia and editor retention:
I ran a large-scale field experiment in and with the community of Swiss 
editors. We show that purely symbolic awards that provide social recognition 
increase newcomer retention by 20%, and the effect persists for over a year 
after initial award receipt:

Gallus, J. (2017). " Fostering public good contributions with symbolic awards: 
A large-scale natural field experiment at Wikipedia ( 
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2540 )." Management 
Science 63(12): 3999-4015.

Would you mind sharing the eventual article with us? I greatly enjoyed 
following this thread and look forward to the article.

On Fri, Dec 18th, 2020 at 9:39 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> I love the study about Wikipedia articles in different language
> versions, and the consequences for tourism in Spain accordlingly. The
> researchers improved articles about Spanish locations, and then the
> tourism there went up.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 
> Hinnosaar, Marit/Toomas Hinnosaar/Michael Kummer/Olga Slivko (2017): Does
> Wikipedia Matter? The effect of Wikipedia on Tourist Choices, Discussion
> Paper
> No. 15-089, Zentrum für Wirtschaftsforschung, http://ftp.zew.de.
> 
> Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 18:33 Uhr schrieb < f...@imm.dtu.dk >:
> >
> > In Wikidata we have annotated 1873 items (articles, books, etc.) as
> > about Wikipedia. Some of them are listed in Scholia:
> > https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52
> >
> > Halfaker et al's "2013" paper, as mentioned, I would also mention.
> >
> > Apart from that there is the famous Nature editorial article "Internet
> > encyclopaedias go head to head" from 2005 which may have contributed to
> > Wikipedia rise. I think it is the most cited Wikipedia study. It has
> > 3182 Google Scholar citations. And it is the most cited study among the
> > Wikipedia works in Wikidata.
> >
> >
> > best regards
> > Finn
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> >> On 18/12/2020 18.23, Jeremy Foote wrote:
> > > When it comes to understanding relationships between multiple language
> 
> > > editions, I think that Bao et al.'s work on Omnipedia has a bunch of
> great
> > > insights for how to think about and measure relationships between
> content
> > > in different editions.
> > >
> > > Bao, P., Hecht, B., Carton, S., Quaderi, M., Horn, M., & Gergle, D.
> (2012).
> > > Omnipedia: Bridging the wikipedia language gap. *Proceedings of the
> 2012
> > > ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*,
> 1075–1084.
> > > https://doi.org/10.1145/2208516.2208553
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Johan Jönsson < brevlis...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 16:23 skrev Morten Wang < nett...@gmail.com >:
> 
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the
> Wikipedia
> > >>> community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality
> assurance
> > >>> processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content
> coming
> > >> in
> > >>> with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
> > >>> good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do
> > >> quality
> > >>> assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who
> are
> > >>> struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions
> (see
> > >>> also the Teahouse paper).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I think we need to start recommending it with a short explanation on
> > >> current trends and mention that it describes a piece of Wikipedia
> history
> > >> (where the mechanics behind the trend could still be relevant). You
> see the
> > >> same curve in a number of other languages (especially languages
> mainly
> > >> spoken in northern Europe), and like English they've typically
> flattened
> > >> out, English already around 2014, other number of languages with a
> similar
> > >> trend around 2018, yet we can still read that the Wikipedia
> editorship is
> > >> in decline in the present tense in papers and articles on English
> Wikipedia
> > >> published in 2020, referencing The Rise and Decline.
> > >>
> > >> //Johan Jönsson
> > >> --
> > >> ___
> > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >>
> > > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
_

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
I love the study about Wikipedia articles in different language
versions, and the consequences for tourism in Spain accordlingly. The
researchers improved articles about Spanish locations, and then the
tourism there went up.
Kind regards
Ziko

Hinnosaar, Marit/Toomas Hinnosaar/Michael Kummer/Olga Slivko (2017): Does
Wikipedia Matter? The effect of Wikipedia on Tourist Choices, Discussion Paper
No. 15-089, Zentrum für Wirtschaftsforschung, http://ftp.zew.de.

Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 18:33 Uhr schrieb :
>
> In Wikidata we have annotated 1873 items (articles, books, etc.) as
> about Wikipedia. Some of them are listed in Scholia:
> https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52
>
> Halfaker et al's "2013" paper, as mentioned, I would also mention.
>
> Apart from that there is the famous Nature editorial article "Internet
> encyclopaedias go head to head" from 2005 which may have contributed to
> Wikipedia rise. I think it is the most cited Wikipedia study. It has
> 3182 Google Scholar citations. And it is the most cited study among the
> Wikipedia works in Wikidata.
>
>
> best regards
> Finn
>
>
>
> On 18/12/2020 18.23, Jeremy Foote wrote:
> > When it comes to understanding relationships between multiple language
> > editions, I think that Bao et al.'s work on Omnipedia has a bunch of great
> > insights for how to think about and measure relationships between content
> > in different editions.
> >
> > Bao, P., Hecht, B., Carton, S., Quaderi, M., Horn, M., & Gergle, D. (2012).
> > Omnipedia: Bridging the wikipedia language gap. *Proceedings of the 2012
> > ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 1075–1084.
> > https://doi.org/10.1145/2208516.2208553
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Johan Jönsson  wrote:
> >
> >> Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 16:23 skrev Morten Wang :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
> >>> community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
> >>> processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming
> >> in
> >>> with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
> >>> good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do
> >> quality
> >>> assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
> >>> struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
> >>> also the Teahouse paper).
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think we need to start recommending it with a short explanation on
> >> current trends and mention that it describes a piece of Wikipedia history
> >> (where the mechanics behind the trend could still be relevant). You see the
> >> same curve in a number of other languages (especially languages mainly
> >> spoken in northern Europe), and like English they've typically flattened
> >> out, English already around 2014, other number of languages with a similar
> >> trend around 2018, yet we can still read that the Wikipedia editorship is
> >> in decline in the present tense in papers and articles on English Wikipedia
> >> published in 2020, referencing The Rise and Decline.
> >>
> >> //Johan Jönsson
> >> --
> >> ___
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Jeremy Foote]

When it comes to understanding relationships between multiple language
editions, I think that Bao et al.'s work on Omnipedia has a bunch of great
insights for how to think about and measure relationships between content
in different editions.

Bao, P., Hecht, B., Carton, S., Quaderi, M., Horn, M., & Gergle, D. (2012).
Omnipedia: Bridging the wikipedia language gap. *Proceedings of the 2012
ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 1075–1084.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2208516.2208553

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Johan Jönsson  wrote:

> Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 16:23 skrev Morten Wang :
>
> >
> > Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
> > community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
> > processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming
> in
> > with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
> > good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do
> quality
> > assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
> > struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
> > also the Teahouse paper).
> >
>
> I think we need to start recommending it with a short explanation on
> current trends and mention that it describes a piece of Wikipedia history
> (where the mechanics behind the trend could still be relevant). You see the
> same curve in a number of other languages (especially languages mainly
> spoken in northern Europe), and like English they've typically flattened
> out, English already around 2014, other number of languages with a similar
> trend around 2018, yet we can still read that the Wikipedia editorship is
> in decline in the present tense in papers and articles on English Wikipedia
> published in 2020, referencing The Rise and Decline.
>
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Johan Jönsson]

Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 16:23 skrev Morten Wang :

>
> Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
> community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
> processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming in
> with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
> good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do quality
> assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
> struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
> also the Teahouse paper).
>

I think we need to start recommending it with a short explanation on
current trends and mention that it describes a piece of Wikipedia history
(where the mechanics behind the trend could still be relevant). You see the
same curve in a number of other languages (especially languages mainly
spoken in northern Europe), and like English they've typically flattened
out, English already around 2014, other number of languages with a similar
trend around 2018, yet we can still read that the Wikipedia editorship is
in decline in the present tense in papers and articles on English Wikipedia
published in 2020, referencing The Rise and Decline.

//Johan Jönsson
--
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Morten Wang, 18/12/20 17:23:

One thing I've noticed is that all the papers I'm referencing focus on the
English Wikipedia. When it comes to studies of other language editions, or
across multiple ones, I've struggled to come up with a key paper to point
to. 


For this I usually reference Felipe Ortega's dissertation of 2009, 
"Wikipedia: A Quantitative Analysis". All the basic trends were there to 
see already, and at the time it was the only cross-language study AFAIK 
(apart from Erik Zachte's statistics).

https://burjcdigital.urjc.es/handle/10115/11239

It's also linked from:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Resources


Hopefully someone else chimes in and fills that hole, as it's important
to recognize that "Wikipedia" doesn't equal the English one.


Indeed.

Federico

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Morten Wang]

In the human-computer interaction field, I'd highlight three seminal papers:

Viégas and Wattenberg's 2004 paper established Wikipedia as an area of
study, and used novel visualization techniques to demonstrate how quickly
vandalism is removed from the encyclopedia. Back in 2004, the main research
question was probably "how does this thing even work?", particularly with
regards to combating vandalism, and this paper starts the path of answering
that question.

Priedhorsky et al's 2007 paper dug into authorship of content that is
viewed, giving us good insights into the "who writes Wikipedia?" question.
It asks some important questions around what "value" is in a
peer-production community like Wikipedia (is content that is viewed more
often more valuable?) There's also some cool methodological aspects of this
paper (it uses MD5 checksums for revert detection, and there's now SHA1
checksums for all revision in Wikipedia's API).

Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia
community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance
processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming in
with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding
good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do quality
assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are
struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see
also the Teahouse paper).

Another question that I find really interesting and that is perhaps often
overlooked is "why did Wikipedia succeed?" It's easy to think that there
were few or no other competitors in the online encyclopedia space at the
time it got started, but there were a bunch of them. Mako Hill's PhD thesis
has a chapter that looks at that
, and he also gave
a talk at the Berkman Klein Center
 about this.

One thing I've noticed is that all the papers I'm referencing focus on the
English Wikipedia. When it comes to studies of other language editions, or
across multiple ones, I've struggled to come up with a key paper to point
to. Hopefully someone else chimes in and fills that hole, as it's important
to recognize that "Wikipedia" doesn't equal the English one.

Cited papers:

   - Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004, April). Studying
   cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations.
   In *Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
   systems* (pp. 575-582).
   - Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., Lam, S. T. K., Panciera, K., Terveen, L., &
   Riedl, J. (2007, November). Creating, destroying, and restoring value in
   Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on
   Supporting group work* (pp. 259-268).
   - Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., Morgan, J. T., & Riedl, J. (2013). The
   rise and decline of an open collaboration system: How Wikipedia’s reaction
   to popularity is causing its decline. *American Behavioral Scientist*,
   *57*(5), 664-688.
   - Morgan, J. T., Bouterse, S., Walls, H., & Stierch, S. (2013,
   February). Tea and sympathy: crafting positive new user experiences on
   wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported
   cooperative work* (pp. 839-848).
   Hill, Benjamin Mako. “Essays on Volunteer Mobilization in Peer
   Production.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
   2013.



On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 05:44, Eric Luth  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> A Swedish professor is writing a piece on Wikipedia for Sweden's largest
> daily newspaper, for the upcoming 20 years anniversary. She asked me for
> "interesting and widespread studies" on Wikipedia – not necessarily within
> any certain focus.
>
> If you would share 2 or 3 studies, that have gained some attention and that
> you find interesting, which would these be?
>
> Would be very happy for any help!
>
> Best
> *Eric Luth*
> Projektledare engagemang och påverkan | Project Manager, Involvement and
> Advocacy
> Wikimedia Sverige
> eric.l...@wikimedia.se
> +46 (0) 765 55 50 95
>
> Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige.
> Läs mer på blimedlem.wikimedia.se
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Trilce Navarrete]

Hi Eric

With a colleague we looked at the use of 'paintings' in the English edition
of Wikipedia. I believe it is the first study of its type. Let me know if
you want a preprint, which I am happy to share.
best
T

Image-based information: paintings in Wikipedia
Trilce Navarrete,
 Elena Villaespesa


Journal of Documentation


ISSN: 0022-0418

Publication date: 26 October 2020



:..::...::..::...::..:
Trilce Navarrete

m: +31 (0)6 244 84998 | s: trilcen | t: @trilcenavarrete
w: trilcenavarrete.com

*Video series: Museums in Context
*
*Latest book: Handbook of Cultural Economics, Third Edition
*
*Blog: Economists Talk Art *


On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 2:44 PM Eric Luth  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> A Swedish professor is writing a piece on Wikipedia for Sweden's largest
> daily newspaper, for the upcoming 20 years anniversary. She asked me for
> "interesting and widespread studies" on Wikipedia – not necessarily within
> any certain focus.
>
> If you would share 2 or 3 studies, that have gained some attention and that
> you find interesting, which would these be?
>
> Would be very happy for any help!
>
> Best
> *Eric Luth*
> Projektledare engagemang och påverkan | Project Manager, Involvement and
> Advocacy
> Wikimedia Sverige
> eric.l...@wikimedia.se
> +46 (0) 765 55 50 95
>
> Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige.
> Läs mer på blimedlem.wikimedia.se
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Interesting Wikipedia studies

[Eric Luth]

Dear all,

A Swedish professor is writing a piece on Wikipedia for Sweden's largest
daily newspaper, for the upcoming 20 years anniversary. She asked me for
"interesting and widespread studies" on Wikipedia – not necessarily within
any certain focus.

If you would share 2 or 3 studies, that have gained some attention and that
you find interesting, which would these be?

Would be very happy for any help!

Best
*Eric Luth*
Projektledare engagemang och påverkan | Project Manager, Involvement and
Advocacy
Wikimedia Sverige
eric.l...@wikimedia.se
+46 (0) 765 55 50 95

Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige.
Läs mer på blimedlem.wikimedia.se
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l