}
}
+% create an empty quotetxt so we can reuse it
+\newcommand{\quotetxt}{}
% add function to stop numbering appendix slides
\newcommand{\backupbegin}{
\let\olditemize\itemize
\renewcommand\itemize{\olditemize\itemsep-1pt}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Introduction}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
%% SLIDE: Title Slide
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}[plain]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\input{vc}
\tikz[overlay,shift=(current page.south west)]{\node [xshift=5.6em,yshift=0.5em]{\colorbox{makopurple1}{\color{white} \tt \smaller \smaller \smaller revision:\ \VCRevision\ (\VCDateTEX)}};}
+ \note{I've been doing this for many years. I started in 2008 and
+ skipped one year, I think.
+
+ This began as an excuse for me to make sure I was up to date on
+ Wikimedia Research.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Anecdote from Wikimania 2008
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\renewcommand{\quotetxt}{``This talk will try to [provide] a quick
+ tour – a literature review in the scholarly parlance – of the last
+ year's academic landscape around Wikimedia and its projects geared
+ at non-academic editors and readers. It will try to categorize,
+ distill, and describe, from a birds eye view, the academic landscape
+ as it is shaping up around
+ our project.''\\
+ \hfill – \e{From my Wikimania 2008 Submission}}
+\begin{frame}
+
+ {\smaller \quotetxt}
+
+ \pause
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/google_scholar_result.png}
+
+ \pause
+ \tikz{\draw (current page.center) [xshift=-2.1cm, yshift=0.9cm, color=red]
+ ellipse (1.5cm and 0.5cm);}
+
+ \note<1>{Back in Wikimania 2008, I set out to run a session at
+ Wikimania that would provide a comprehensive literature review of
+ articles in Wikipedia published in the last year.
+
+ \begin{quote}
+ \quotetxt
+ \end{quote}
+
+ Then, about two weeks before Wikimania, I did the scholar search
+ so I could build the literature.}
+
+ \note<2->{I tried to import the whole list into Zotero and managed
+ to get banned for abusing the Google Scholar because they thought
+ that no human being could realistically consume the amount of
+ material published on Wikipedia that year.
+
+ So anyway, I had a 45 minute talk so it worked out to 3.45 seconds
+ to per paper...
+
+ And believe it or, this year is even bigger.
+
+ And my talk is even shorter.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Citations Per Year
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}
+
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/citations_by_year.pdf}
+
+ \centering
+
+ {\smaller \emph{Number of citation, per year, with the term
+ “wikipedia” in the title.\\
+ (Source: Google scholar results. Accessed: 2013-08-06)}}
+
+ \note{Academics have written \e{a lot} of papers about
+ Wikipedia. There are more than 500 papers published about
+ Wikipedia each year and although we've reached a peak, it's not
+ really slowing.
+
+ We're on track this year to meet or surpass that.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+% %% SLIDE: breakdown by time?
+% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% \begin{frame}
+
+% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/wikipeda_citations_bytime.png}
+% \end{frame}
+
+
+%% SLIDE: My Scope Conditions
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}
+
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/multiple_issues.png}
+
+ \larger \larger
+ In selecting papers for this session, the goal is always to choose
+ examples of work that:
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger
+ \item Represent \e{important themes} from Wikipedia in the last year.
+ \item Research that is likely to be of \e{interest} to Wikimedians.
+ \item Research by people who are \e{not at Wikimania}.
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ Within these goals, the selections are \e{incomplete}, and \e{wrong}.
+
+ \note{This is my disclaimer slide...}
+\end{frame}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Paper Summaries}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+\subsection{Wikipedia in Context}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Reagle and Loveland Citation
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia in Historical Context}
+
+ \larger \larger Loveland, Jeff, and Joseph Reagle. “Wikipedia and
+ Encyclopedic Production.” \emph{New Media \& Society}
+ (2013). DOI:10.1177/1461444812470428.
+
+ \note{Jeff Loveland is a historian of encyclopedias. Joseph Reagle
+ is a media studies scholar who wrote the first book length
+ academic treatment of Wikipedia.
+
+ Loveland heard about Reagle's book through an article in the
+ Signpost but felt it was weak on history. So, they got together
+ and put together a great piece of work that places Wikipedia into
+ historical context.}
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Reagle and Loveland Overview
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia in Historical Context}
+
+ \larger \larger \larger Loveland and Reagle cite three modes
+ of encyclopedia production:
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger \larger
+ \item Compulsive collection
+ \item Stigmertic accumluative
+ \item Corporate production
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ In each case, they see a connection between Wikipedia and methods of
+ the past.
+
+ \note<1>{The authors identify three historical methods through which
+ encyclopedias were written and they suggest that, in different
+ ways, each plays a role in Wikipedia:
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item \e{Compulsive collection} were people who were individually
+ driven to collect information. Think Pliny the Elder. And then
+ think Wikipediaholics and WikiBreak enforcing software.
+ \item \e{Stigmergic accumulation} references the `stigmergy' is a
+ word form Zoology that describes how wasps build nests and
+ references accumulation. In the past, this meant piracy and
+ building off of others. In Wikipedia, it means revision,
+ incorporation of other sources, and more.
+ \item \e{Corporate productin} means working together with many
+ other people. Diderot took advantage of at least 140 different
+ authors. Think the OED collecting information from
+ others. Wikipedia of course uses a similar model.
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ In each case, they think that Wikipedia's model is not a total
+ break from the past in the way many people talk abou it.}
+
+ \note<2>{Now my own bias as a reseacher is to look to more
+ quantitative or easy to apply work.
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} But I think is a great example how much of the more humanities
+ focused work on Wikipedia can do a wonderful job of providing us
+ context and a better way to think about and talk about what we're
+ doing.}
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\subsection{Wikipedia as Data Source}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Citation
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia as Data Source}
+
+ \larger \larger
+
+ Sérasset, Giles. “Dbnary: Wiktionary as a LMF Based Multilingual RDF
+ Network.” In \emph{Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on
+ Language Resources and Evaluation}, 2012.
+
+ \begin{center}
+ \visible<2>{\url{http://dbnary.forge.imag.fr/}}
+ \end{center}
+
+ \note<1>{There's a whole genre of paper that is about Wikipedia only
+ in that is uses WP as its dataset. This might even be a
+ \e{majority} of all papers published on Wikipedia.
+
+ This paper up here, on a project called ``Dbnary'', is attempt to
+ build a \e{lexical network} out of Wiktionary data. Essentially,
+ they are using Wiktionary as a network of words and their
+ relationships -- including definitions, translations, synonyms,
+ antonyms, etc. -- in different languages, often connected through
+ common etymologies.
+
+ Lexical networks are are essential to a whole family of
+ computerized natural language processing and a variety of
+ linguistic projects.
+
+ What I like about what Sérraseset did was that he created not only
+ use it as a dataset but really did a bunch of work to make
+ Wiktionary more useful to other resources.}
+
+ \note<2>{The researcher has created an open source tool – available
+ at the URL above.
+
+ And anybody can use this tool, along with the dumps as published
+ by WMF, to produce their own, on their computers, is about 5
+ minutes.
+
+ The paper also contains a list of challenges that Wiktionary
+ contributors might be able to use to extract data more effectively
+ in the future.
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} I think that this paper suggests, like a lot of
+ simliar work, how Wikipedia's effect is broader than just what
+ comes through viewership on the web. And that there are important
+ ways we might be able to work with researchers like this to become
+ more effective.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{Wikipedia and Quality}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Wikipedia and Quality Citation
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia and Quality}
+
+ \larger \larger
+
+ Volsky, Peter G., Cristina M. Baldassari, Sirisha Mushti, and Craig
+ S. Derkay. ``Quality of Internet Information in Pediatric
+ Otolaryngology: A Comparison of Three Most Referenced Websites.''
+ \emph{International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology} 76,
+ no. 9 (September 2012): 1312–1316. DOI:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.05.026.
+
+ \note{There is little industry of articles designed to evaluate
+ Wikipedia's quality. There are literally dozens of these each
+ year. And one that thing that frustrates me is that its very rare
+ that the people doing these coordinate with Wikipedia or that
+ Wikipedians systematically reach out to the people doing these to
+ learn.
+
+ This is an example of one from pediatric otolayrnology. That is,
+ the study of dieases of the ear, nose, and throat -- in children.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Results
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Wikipedia and Quality: Evaluation of Otolaryngology Articles}
+ \smaller \smaller
+ \begin{columns}
+ \column{0.53\textwidth}
+ \centering
+
+ \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-content_accuracy.png}
+
+ Accuracy as scored for content against a rubric\\
+ developed from otolaryngology textbooks.
+
+ \bigskip
+
+ \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-errors_omissions.png}
+
+ Mean numbers of errors and omissions.
+
+ \column{0.47\textwidth}
+ \centering
+
+ \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto_reading_level.png}
+
+ Composite score for user interface.
+
+ \bigskip
+
+ \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/oto-user_interface.png}
+
+ Flesch–Kinkaid Reading Level.
+
+ \end{columns}
+
+ \bigskip
+
+ {\centering
+ {\larger WK=Wikipedia; ML=MedLinePlus; EM=eMedicine.}
+
+ }
+
+ \note{Like many of these studies, this study cmpares Wikipedia to
+ other sites. In this case, eMedicne, and Medicine Plus. They used
+ a series of textbooks and experts to evaluate the the content
+ errors and they used some standard systems to evaluate usability
+ and reading level.
+
+ They find that Wikipedia has the most errors, the least accuracy,
+ aa medium reading level. But similar in most cases to MedLinePlus.
+
+ And Wikipedia had a rather good user interface compared to the
+ others.
+
+ I'm not sure what that says about the others user interface.
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} We need to be better about getting these datsets and
+ helping integrate these into improving the encyclopedia.}
\end{frame}
+\subsection{Perception of Quality}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Perception of Quality
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Perception of Quality}
+
+ \larger \larger Towne, W. Ben, Aniket Kittur, Peter Kinnaird, and
+ James Herbsleb. “Your Process Is Showing: Controversy Management and
+ Perceived Quality in Wikipedia.” In \emph{Proceedings of the 2013
+ Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work}, 1059–1068. CSCW
+ ’13. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013. DI:10.1145/2441776.2441896.
+
+ \note{A group at Carnegie Mellon put together a really nice piece
+ that tried to surface Wikipedia's talk pages. Now, as many of you
+ will know intuitive, a majority of Wikipededia's work happens on
+ talk pages are invisible to many users. What would happen if we
+ made this more visible?}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Perception of Quality: Towne et al.}
+
+ \larger \larger
+ ``Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion
+ as we know how they are made.''\\
+ \hfill -- John G. Saxe,
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger
+ \item<2-> Discussion $\Rightarrow$ Lower Ratings
+ \item<3-> Unresolved conflict $\Rightarrow$ Even lower ratings
+ \item<4-> Discussion $\Rightarrow$ Higher reported preception of
+ Wikipedia and article!
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ \note{The goal was to test this theory in Wikipedia.
+
+ An experiment, on Mechanical Turk, to show people Wikipedia
+ articles and also to show them the talk pages. Then then asked
+ people to rate the articles, and their perception of the article
+ and of Wikipedia.
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item When discussion is shown, quality rating were significantly lower.
+ \item When discussion involving conflict was displayed, article
+ quality ratings were even lower.
+ \item If the editors involved in the conflict resolved it
+ through a positive collaboration approach, the negative
+ effects of conflict disappeared.
+ \item Participants reported that reading the discussion raised
+ their perceptions of both the article’s quality and Wikipedia
+ in general. (i.e., they were not aware of the rating-lowering
+ effect of the discussion, and generally.)
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} There's a deep and interesting tradeoff that cuts to
+ the core of Wikimedia's two missions to empower folks by getting
+ involved in the process to display material. This kind of work
+ explores big important questions at the heart of the foundations
+ work.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{Tool Building for Wikipedians}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Tool Building for Wikipedians
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Tool Building for Wikipedians}
+
+ \larger \larger Solorio, Thamar, Ragib Hasan, and Mainul Mizan. ``A
+ Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection in Wikipedia.'' In
+ \emph{Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media},
+ 59–68. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Association for Computational
+ Linguistics, 2013.
+
+ \note<1>{This is paper from a computational linguistics conference. And
+ they set out to create a method to identify sockpuppets in
+ Wikipedia.
+
+ There's a little academic industry designed to detect authorship
+ across texts and alias. But one problem that literature has is
+ that they almost no data of people \e{trying} to hide their
+ identity where the identity was later confirmed.
+
+ Wikipedia has no such problem. There were more than 2,700 cases of
+ suspected sock-puppeting in Wikipedia in 2012 alone.}
+
+ \note<2>{They use a database of confirmed (with checkuser) and rejected
+ cases of sockpuppeting to train a machine learning based approach
+ to classify edits.
+
+ The system achieved an accuracy of 68.83\% in the tested cases.
+
+ This is not very good because simply always confirming the
+ suspected sockpuppet abuse would have achieved 53.24\% accuracy.
+ After adding features based on the user's edit frequency by time
+ of day and day of the week, it achieved 84.04\% confidence.
+
+ The authors have ideas of creating a system that could run in the
+ background and detect sockpuppets. But even if that never happens,
+ community members have done similar work in the past. And this
+ represents a set of tools and techniques from which the community
+ could directly benefit.
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} We need to get better about working with all the
+ people, like this, building tools for our communities.}
+
+
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\subsection{Effects of Feedback}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Effects of Feedback Citation
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Effects of Feedback}
+
+ \larger \larger Zhu, Haiyi, Amy Zhang, Jiping He, Robert Kraut, and Aniket
+ Kittur. ``Effects of Peer Feedback on Contribution: A Field
+ Experiment in Wikipedia.'' In \emph{Proceedings of the SIGCHI
+ Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems}. Paris, France:
+ ACM, 2013.
+
+ \note{There have been a whole bunch of studies which have looked at
+ the effects of feedback on contribution to Wikipedia. Reverts,
+ welcome messages, et. And they have shown a series of effects.
+
+ But one concern with this work is that it is not causal. People
+ who receive negative messages are often behaving differently than
+ people who do not.
+
+ This reflects a real experiment, done in Wikipedia, where
+ different types of feedback were randomly assigned.
+
+ In August-November 2011, they left feedback for 703 creators of
+ new articles in Wikipedia after at least two days and making sure
+ the article had a certain amount of content and had not been
+ tagged for speedy deletion.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%% SLIDE: Effects of Feedback Figures
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Effects of Feedback: Zhu et al.}
+ \centering
+
+ \includegraphics[height=0.85\textheight]{figures/shared_leadership-figures.pdf}
+
+ \note{They left four kinds of feedback: positive, negative,
+ directive, and social.
+
+ And they were interested in both the effect on editing in the new
+ article they mention and on general editing on Wikipedia.
+
+ Feedback had no effect at all on experienced contributors. At
+ all. This was surpising to the folks running the study but maybe
+ not to the folks in this room.
+
+ In newbies, they found that negative feedback and directive
+ feedback had a positive effect on editing in the focal article and
+ positive feedback had a effect on general editing (but not the
+ article in question). And they found no other effects.
+
+ \e{Takeaway:} We should learn from and improve our processes based
+ on studies like these. We should work with researchers to do more
+ experiments. There are important ethical implications. There was a
+ long section of the paper about talking to the research ctte and
+ others.}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Conclusion}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+%% SLIDE: Other Resources
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{More Resources}
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger \larger
+ \item \e{Wikimedia Research Newsletter} [[:meta:Research:Newsletter]]
+ \item \e{WikiSym} (Last week in Hong Kong!)
+ \item \e{WikiPapers Repository} [http://wikipapers.referata.com]
+ \item \e{Much More}
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ \note{Those are my six postcards.
+
+ There has been just tons and tons of work in this area. Trying to
+ talk about this in 20 minutes strikes me as increasingly crazy
+ every year I try to do it.
+
+ The most important source, now going for a couple years, is the
+ Wikimedia Research Newsletter which is published monthly in the
+ signpost.
+
+ But there are other resources as well. And I encourage you to get
+ involved.}
+
+\end{frame}
\end{document}
--- /dev/null
+,wikipedia,corpus,quality,reputation,gender,collaboration,education,,,network,model
+2001,18,1,0,0,0,0,0,,,0,0
+2002,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,0,0
+2003,12,0,0,0,0,0,0,,,0,0
+2004,47,0,0,0,0,4,0,,,0,0
+2005,213,4,5,1,0,2,5,,,3,0
+2006,354,10,6,7,0,11,7,,,9,0
+2007,570,26,10,6,0,13,7,,,4,5
+2008,634,44,12,10,0,13,16,,,8,8
+2009,721,53,16,8,2,16,19,,,9,13
+2010,754,79,12,10,4,12,20,,,9,12
+2011,692,59,15,18,4,41,29,,,22,15
+2012,674,76,19,7,4,22,25,,,24,15
+2013,435,49,12,3,3,22,29,,,15,14
+2013 to date,255,29,7,2,2,13,17,,,9,8
\ No newline at end of file
--- /dev/null
+* 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
projects / state_of_wikimedia_research_2013 / commitdiff
