BibSonomy publications for /tag/wikipediaFri Feb 10 11:21:49 CET 2012CHIconf/chi/20081037-1040Lifting the veil: improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard.2008quality realiability wikidashboard wikipedia Tue Feb 07 21:26:59 CET 2012Nature900-901Internet encyclopaedias go head to head4382005britannica encyclopedia nature quality wikipedia Tue Feb 07 11:33:45 CET 2012Int. Sym. Wikisconf/wikis/2011163-172Don't bite the newbies: how reverts affect the quantity and quality of Wikipedia work.2011affect quality quantity reverts wikipedia Mon Jan 23 09:23:23 CET 2012Proceedings International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics: 10 thMeasuring Wikipedia2005analysis collaborative measuring wikipedia Mon Jan 23 09:20:45 CET 2012In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism16--17Wikipedia as Participatory journalism: reliable sources? metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource2004analysis collaborative evaluation wikipedia Wikipedia is an Internet-based, user contributed encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited, and utilizes the wiki concept – the idea that any user on the Internet can change any page within the Web site, even anonymously. Paradoxically, this seemingly chaotic process has created a highly regarded reference on the Internet. Wikipedia has emerged as the largest example of participatory journalism to date – facilitating many-to-many communication among users editing articles, all working towards maintaining a neutral point of view — Wikipedia’s mantra. This study examines the growth of Wikipedia and analyzes the crucial technologies and community policies that have enabled the project to prosper. It also analyzes Wikipedia’s articles that have been cited in the news media, and establishes a set of metrics based on established encyclopedia taxonomies and analyzes the trends in Wikipedia being used as a source.Mon Jan 23 07:57:50 CET 2012New York, NY, USACSCW '08: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work37--46Harnessing the Wisdom of Crowds in Wikipedia: Quality Through Coordination2008analysis coordination discussions paper quality wikipedia Wikipedia's success is often attributed to the large numbers of contributors who improve the accuracy, completeness and clarity of articles while reducing bias. However, because of the coordination needed to write an article collaboratively, adding contributors is costly. We examined how the number of editors in Wikipedia and the coordination methods they use affect article quality. We distinguish between explicit coordination, in which editors plan the article through communication, and implicit coordination, in which a subset of editors structure the work by doing the majority of it. Adding more editors to an article improved article quality only when they used appropriate coordination techniques and was harmful when they did not. Implicit coordination through concentrating the work was more helpful when many editors contributed, but explicit coordination through communication was not. Both types of coordination improved quality more when an article was in a formative stage. These results demonstrate the critical importance of coordination in effectively harnessing the "wisdom of the crowd" in online production environments.Wed Jan 18 15:58:50 CET 2012Wikipedia Miner2011datamining nocache semantic_web webservice wikipedia Sun Jan 15 13:11:30 CET 2012Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems462{He says, she says: Conflict and coordination in Wikipedia}2007conflict coordination md5 reverts wikipedia Wed Jan 11 15:40:39 CET 2012New York, NY, USAProceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work215--224CSCW '10Beyond Wikipedia: coordination and conflict in online production groups2010communication conflict coordination wiki wikia wikipedia Online production groups have the potential to transform the way that knowledge is produced and disseminated. One of the most widely used forms of online production is the wiki, which has been used in domains ranging from science to education to enterprise. We examined the development of and interactions between coordination and conflict in a sample of 6811 wiki production groups. We investigated the influence of four coordination mechanisms: intra-article communication, inter-user communication, concentration of workgroup structure, and policy and procedures. We also examined the growth of conflict, finding the density of users in an information space to be a significant predictor. Finally, we analyzed the effectiveness of the four coordination mechanisms on managing conflict, finding differences in how each scaled to large numbers of contributors. Our results suggest that coordination mechanisms effective for managing conflict are not always the same as those effective for managing task quality, and that designers must take into account the social benefits of coordination mechanisms in addition to their production benefits.Tue Jan 03 13:14:13 CET 2012Int. Sym. Wikisconf/wikis/201125-28What Wikipedia deletes: characterizing dangerous collaborative content.2011wiki wikipedia Sat Dec 17 12:21:47 CET 2011New York, NY, USAJournal of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologyJanuary1117--132Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited: Fair ranking for reasonable quality?622011Fair Ranking Wikipedia articles bisibs content engines generated quality ranking reasonable search ugc user This paper aims to review the fiercely discussed question of whether the ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines is justified by the quality of the articles. After an overview of current research on information quality in Wikipedia, a summary of the extended discussion on the quality of encyclopedic entries in general is given. On this basis, a heuristic method for evaluating Wikipedia entries is developed and applied to Wikipedia articles that scored highly in a search engine retrieval effectiveness test and compared with the relevance judgment of jurors. In all search engines tested, Wikipedia results are unanimously judged better by the jurors than other results on the corresponding results position. Relevance judgments often roughly correspond with the results from the heuristic evaluation. Cases in which high relevance judgments are not in accordance with the comparatively low score from the heuristic evaluation are interpreted as an indicator of a high degree of trust in Wikipedia. One of the systemic shortcomings of Wikipedia lies in its necessarily incoherent user model. A further tuning of the suggested criteria catalog, for instance, the different weighing of the supplied criteria, could serve as a starting point for a user model differentiated evaluation of Wikipedia articles. Approved methods of quality evaluation of reference works are applied to Wikipedia articles and integrated with the question of search engine evaluation. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Thu Dec 08 14:12:41 CET 2011Journal of Information Science5487-498Information quality assessment of community generated content: A user study of Wikipedia372011A Information Wikipedia assessment bisibs community content: generated of quality study user This study examines the ways in which information consumers evaluate the quality of content in a collaborative-writing environment, in this case Wikipedia. Sixty-four users were asked to assess the quality of five articles from the Hebrew Wikipedia, to indicate the highest- and lowest-quality article of the five and explain their choices. Participants viewed both the article page, and the article’s history page, so that their decision was based both on the article’s current content and on its development. The analysis shows that the attributes that most frequently assisted the users in deciding about the quality of the items were not unique to Wikipedia: attributes such as amount of information, satisfaction with content and external links were mentioned frequently, as with other information quality studies on the web. The findings also support the claim that quality is a subjective concept which depends on the user’s unique point of view. Attributes such as number of edits and number of unique editors received two contradictory meanings – both few edits/editors and many edits/editors were mentioned as attributes of high-quality articles.Mon Dec 05 19:10:27 CET 2011JIM-Studie 2011. Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media2011jugendliche medianpaedagogik schule web20 wikipedia wikipediaschulprojekt Tue Nov 15 13:58:05 CET 2011WWWconf/www/20081095-1096Size matters: word count as a measure of quality on wikipedia2008count quality wikipedia word Mon Nov 14 19:09:23 CET 2011New York, NY, USACSCW '08: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work37--46Harnessing the Wisdom of Crowds in Wikipedia: Quality Through Coordination2008coordination discussions quality wikipedia Wikipedia's success is often attributed to the large numbers of contributors who improve the accuracy, completeness and clarity of articles while reducing bias. However, because of the coordination needed to write an article collaboratively, adding contributors is costly. We examined how the number of editors in Wikipedia and the coordination methods they use affect article quality. We distinguish between explicit coordination, in which editors plan the article through communication, and implicit coordination, in which a subset of editors structure the work by doing the majority of it. Adding more editors to an article improved article quality only when they used appropriate coordination techniques and was harmful when they did not. Implicit coordination through concentrating the work was more helpful when many editors contributed, but explicit coordination through communication was not. Both types of coordination improved quality more when an article was in a formative stage. These results demonstrate the critical importance of coordination in effectively harnessing the "wisdom of the crowd" in online production environments.Thu Nov 10 11:31:24 CET 2011Science (New York, N.Y.)6014135--135Google Books, Wikipedia, and the Future of Culturomics3312011artikel3 future google-books wikipedia Fri Oct 28 14:32:42 CEST 2011cite arxiv:1110.5863A Wikipedia Literature Review2011research wikipedia This paper was originally designed as a literature review for a doctoral dissertation focusing on Wikipedia. This exposition gives the structure of Wikipedia and the latest trends in Wikipedia research. Tue Oct 18 08:23:23 CEST 2011Information Technology \& Libraries17 - 15A Simple Scheme for Book Classification Using Wikipedia.302011ABMM01 LIS PHP automatization classification google metadata wikipedia The article discusses a method of classifying the subject matter of nonfiction books using software script developed by the author that searches content on the Wikipedia web site using the Google web site. The author introduces ways that Wikipedia has been used by other researchers for metadata enrichment, text clustering, and classification. The author describes a test case he conducted for his book-subject classification system using the book "A Brief History of Time," by Stephen Hawking. Results of a broader test of the author's approach are tabulated and discussed.Sun Oct 16 21:00:49 CEST 2011Hamburg 1. Aufl. Alles über Wikipedia und die Menschen hinter der größten Enzyklopädie der Welt 2011 2011 buchmesse wikimediadeutschland wikipedia wikipediabuch Tue Sep 20 15:03:13 CEST 2011Wikipedia Miner2011datamining nocache semantic_web webservice wikipedia wikipediaCommunity for tag(s) wikipedia