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 > <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764212469367> (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 > <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260103> 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 > <https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2018.00054/full>. 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 > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase> is a great > place to start one's explorations :) > > - Jonathan > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:23 AM Morten Wang <nett...@gmail.com> 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 > > <https://mako.cc/academic/hill-almost_wikipedia-DRAFT.pdf>, and he also > > gave > > a talk at the Berkman Klein Center > > <https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2011/10/makohill> 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 <eric.l...@wikimedia.se> 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 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
