X-Git-Url: https://projects.mako.cc/source/state_of_wikimedia_research_2013/blobdiff_plain/122dd75e45ccdfd01c795839ede755ffed1a69c2..ba6cb65ce89c04f5222e74a82c93e4f030dd16d3:/outline.org

diff --git a/outline.org b/outline.org
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fe21c4c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/outline.org
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+* DONE Wikipedia in Context
+** DONE Reagle and Loveland on "Wikipedia and encyclopedic production"
+* How Wikipedia is Organized
+** Butler et al:  Eyes on the prize: officially sanctioned rule breaking in mass collaboration systems
+* Motivating Editors
+** Haiyi on Effects of Peer Feedback on Contribution: A Field Experiment in Wikipedia
+
+One of the most significant challenges for many online communities is
+increasing members' contributions over time. Prior studies on peer
+feedback in online communities have suggested its impact on
+contribution, but have been limited by their correlational nature. In
+this paper, we conducted a field experiment on Wikipedia to test the
+effects of different feedback types (positive feedback, negative
+feedback, directive feedback, and social feedback) on members'
+contribution. Our results characterize the effects of different
+feedback types, and suggest trade-offs in the effects of feedback
+between the focal task and general motivation, as well as differences
+in how newcomers and experienced editors respond to peer
+feedback. This research provides insights into the mechanisms
+underlying peer feedback in online communities and practical guidance
+to design more effective peer feedback systems.
+
+* DONE Tool Development for Wikipedia
+** DONE A Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection in Wikipedia
+* DONE Wikipedia as Data Source
+** DONE Dbnary: Wiktionary as a LMF based Multilingual RDF network
+* DONE Evaluating Wikipedia's Quality
+** DONE Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: A comparison of three most referenced websites
+** Presence and adequacy of pharmaceutical preparations in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia
+* DONE Judging Quality of Wikipedia
+** DONE Your process is showing: controversy management and perceived quality in wikipedia
+
+Nikki et al. 
+
+** Understanding trust formation in digital information sources: The case of Wikipedia
+
+An article[5] in the Journal of Information Science, titled
+"Understanding trust formation in digital information sources: The
+case of Wikipedia", explores the criteria used by students to evaluate
+the credibility of Wikipedia articles. It contains an overview of
+various earlier studies about credibility judgments of Wikipedia
+articles (some of them reviewed previously in this space, example:
+"Quality of featured articles doesn't always impress readers").
+
+The authors asked "20 second-year undergraduate students and 30
+Master’s students" in information studies to first spend 20 minutes
+reading "a copy of a two-page Wikipedia article on Generation Z, a
+topic with which students were expected to have some familiarity", and
+answer an open-ended question explaining how they would judge its
+trustworthiness. In a subsequent part, the respondents were asked to
+rank a list of factors for trustworthiness in case of "either (a) the
+topic of an assignment, or (b) a minor medical condition from which
+they were suffering". One of the first findings was a "low
+pre-disposition to use [Wikipedia], possibly suggesting a propensity
+to distrust, grounded on debates and comments on the trustworthiness
+of Wikipedia" – possibly to the fact that the example article
+contained an example of vandalism, a fact highlighted by several
+respondents (e.g. "started off as a valid entry ... due to citations
+strengthening this ... however came to the last paragraph and the
+whole document was marred by the insert of 'writing articles on
+Wikipedia while on amphetamines' [as purported hobby of Generation Z
+members]... just feels that you can't trust anything now").
+
+Among the given trustworthiness factors, the following were ranked
+most highly:
+
+  authorship, currency, references, expert recommendation and
+  triangulation/verification, with usefulness just below this
+  threshold.
+
+In other words, participants valued having articles that were written
+by experts on the subject, that were up to date, and that they
+perceived to be useful (content factors). ... Interestingly these
+factors all seemed more or less equally important for both contexts,
+with the exception of references, which for predictable reasons were
+seen as having greater importance in the context of assignments.
+
+* Viewership
+** "Science eight times more popular on the Spanish Wikipedia than on the English Wikipedia"
+* Not Presenting
+** Ayelet Oz Paper