\item \e{2968} Wikipedia-related publications in the Scopus database
as of November 2013
- \item \e{160} recent publications reviewed or mentioned in the 12 issues
- of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter August 2013-July 2014.
+ \item \e{191} recent publications reviewed or mentioned in the 12 issues
+ of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter from July 2014 to June 2015.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
\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}.
+ \item \ldots with a bias towards \e{peer-reviewed} publications
\end{itemize}
\note{This is my disclaimer slide...
\section{Paper Summaries}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-% \subsection{Event Prediction}
+\begin{frame}
+ \centertext{6em}{Wikipedia as a Source of Data}
-% \begin{frame}
-% \centertext{6em}{Event Prediction}
+ \note{Mako}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
-% \note{Mako
+ \frametitle{Wikipedia as a source of data}
-% This was the year that studies of readership of Wikipedia really
-% blossomed. People figured out how to use the view data. Much of
-% what they used it for was prediction.}
-% \end{frame}
+ \larger \larger Ronen, S., Gonçalves, B., Hu, K. Z., Vespignani, A.,
+ Pinker, S., \& Hidalgo, C. A. (2014). \e{Links that speak: The
+ global language network and its association with global
+ fame}. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52),
+ E5616—E5622. \href{http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410931111}{doi:10.1073/pnas.1410931111}
-% \begin{frame}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+ \frametitle{Wikipedia as a source of data: Ronen et al.}
+
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/ronen_fig1.png}
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{Community and Organization}
+
+\begin{frame}
+ \centertext{6em}{Community and Organization}
+
+ \note{Mako}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+
+ \frametitle{Community and organization}
+
+ \larger \larger Warncke-Wang, M., Ranjan, V., Terveen, L., \& Hecht,
+ B. (2015). \e{Misalignment Between Supply and Demand of Quality Content
+ in Peer Production Communities}. In Ninth International AAAI
+ Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM).
+
+ % Retrieved from \href{http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/view/10591}{http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/view/10591}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+ \frametitle{Community and organization: Warncke-Wang et al.}
+
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/warncke-english_confusion.pdf}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+ \frametitle{Community and organization: Warncke-Wang et al.}
+
+ \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/warncke-english_overunder.pdf}
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{Content Quality}
+
+\begin{frame}
+ \centertext{6em}{Content quality}
+
+ \note{Tilman
+
+ A decade after the landmark "Nature" study, there still aren't too
+ many systematic evaluations of the accuracy of Wikipedia's content.
+ Health articles continue to receive scrutiny, though. With good
+ reason: Wikipedia is "the most frequently consulted online health
+ care resource globally" [NEJM article].}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
-% \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction}
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles}
+
+ \larger \larger
+ Hwang et al., ``\e{Drug Safety in the Digital Age}.''
+ N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2460-2462 June 26, 2014
+ \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1401767}{doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1401767}.
+ \bigskip
+
+ Kräenbring et al., \e{Accuracy and completeness of drug
+ information in Wikipedia: a comparison with standard textbooks of
+ pharmacology}. PLoS One 9 (9): e106930.
+ \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106930}
+ {doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106930}
+
+
+ \note{Tilman
+
+ We selected two papers that evaluated drug articles, with
+ different approaches. The first one is a short article in the
+ extremely prestigious NEJM.}
+\end{frame}
-% \larger \larger McIver, David J., and John
-% S. Brownstein. ``\e{Wikipedia Usage Estimates Prevalence of
-% Influenza-Like Illness in the United States in Near Real-Time}.''
-% PLoS Comput Biol 10, no. 4 (April 17, 2014):
-% e1003581. \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003581}{doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003581}.
+\begin{frame}
+
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles: NEJM}
-% \end{frame}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/Pradaxa_tweet_FDAMedWach.png}
+ % from https://twitter.com/FDAMedWatch/status/281547908095041536
+ % = first one in the list at http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMp1401767/suppl_file/nejmp1401767_appendix.pdf
+ \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/Dabitragan_Contraindications_WP_FDA_warning}
+
+ \tikz{\node [yshift=1.5cm,xshift=-0.4cm] at (current page.center) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{figures/long-arrow-right.png}};}
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger
+ \item The US Food and Drug Administration (\e{FDA}) frequently
+ issues safety warnings about prescription drugs. How long does it
+ take until these are reflected on English Wikipedia?
+ \item 41\% updated within two weeks (58\% for high-prevalent
+ diseases), but 36\% still unchanged after more than a year.
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ \note{Tilman
+
+ Articles about drugs used to treat high-prevalent diseases (affecting
+ > 1 m Americans / year) were updated faster.\\
+ But the result still caused concern.\\
+ Authors find "there may be a benefit to enabling the FDA to update or
+ automatically feed new safety communications to Wikipedia pages, as
+ it does with WebMD". The paper raised awareness among WikiProject
+ Medicine editors, but there's no systematic updating mechanism yet.}
-% \begin{frame}
-% \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction: Motivation}
+\end{frame}
-% \begin{itemize}
-% \larger \larger
-% \item \e{Google Flu Trends} uses search engine queries to try to
-% predict influenza epidemics more quickly than traditional methods.
-% \item ..but it has been criticized as being biased (e.g., by media coverage).
-% \item WP is freely available and viewership data is free, unlike
-% Google which is proprietary.
+\begin{frame}
-% \end{itemize}
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles: PLoS One}
-% \note{2009 H1N1 Swine Flu broke GFT.}
-% \end{frame}
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger \larger
+ \item Selected 100 drugs from German undergrad curriculum in pharmacology
+ \item Extracted information from two standard textbooks
+ \item "Accuracy of drug information in [German] Wikipedia was 99.7\%±0.2\% when compared to the textbook data." Similar results for English Wikipedia
+ \end{itemize}
-% \begin{frame}
+\end{frame}
-% \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction: Methods}
-% \begin{itemize}
-% \larger \larger \larger
-% \item Measure traffic to flu related articles on Wikipedia
-% \item Compare to the ``gold standard'' data from the Center for
-% Disease Control (CDC)
-% \end{itemize}
+\begin{frame}
+
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles: PLoS One}
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger \larger
+ \item Completeness (as compared to the textbooks):
+ \begin{itemize} \larger \larger
+ \item 83.8\% (of 224 statements) for German WP
+ \item 87.2\% for English WP
+ \end{itemize}
+ \item Completeness of contraindications information was 100\% in the En WP sample.
+ \item English WP cited academic publications more often than German WP.
+ \item Quality "significantly improved" in drug articles assessed
+ in a 2010 study.
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ \note{Tilman
+
+ The majority of the missing information (62.5\%) on German WP
+ was judged non-relevant for undergrad students.
+
+ The result on completeness of contraindications information is
+ somewhat in contrast with the NEJM study. Then again, the
+ textbooks were probably not perfectly up-to-date either.}
+\end{frame}
+
-% \end{frame}
% \begin{frame}
% \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction: Results}
\begin{itemize}
\larger \larger
- \item \e{Wikimedia Research Newsletter} [[:meta:Research:Newsletter]]
- \item \e{WikiSym} (Later this month in Berlin!)
+ \item \e{Wikimedia Research Newsletter} [[:meta:Research:Newsletter]] / @WikiResearch
+ \item \e{WikiSym/OpenSym} (This August in San Francisco!)
\item \e{WikiPapers Repository} [http://wikipapers.referata.com]
\item \e{Much More}
\end{itemize}
projects / state_of_wikimedia_research_2015 / blobdiff