Search results

Develop a comprehensive framework for assessing the knowledge organization systems (KOSs), including the taxonomy of Wikipedia and the ontologies of Wikidata, with a specific focus on enhancing management and retrieval with a gender nonbinary perspective.

This study employs heuristic and inspection methods to assess Wikipedia’s KOS, ensuring compliance with international standards. It evaluates the efficiency of retrieving non-masculine gender-related articles using the Catalan Wikipedian category scheme, identifying limitations. Additionally, a novel assessment of Wikidata ontologies examines their structure and coverage of gender-related properties, comparing them to Wikipedia’s taxonomy for advantages and enhancements.

This study evaluates Wikipedia’s taxonomy and Wikidata’s ontologies, establishing evaluation criteria for gender-based categorization and exploring their structural effectiveness. The evaluation process suggests that Wikidata ontologies may offer a viable solution to address Wikipedia’s categorization challenges.

The assessment of Wikipedia categories (taxonomy) based on KOS standards leads to the conclusion that there is ample room for improvement, not only in matters concerning gender identity but also in the overall KOS to enhance search and retrieval for users. These findings bear relevance for the design of tools to support information retrieval on knowledge-rich websites, as they assist users in exploring topics and concepts.

This study aims to analyse how first-year undergraduate audiovisual communication students assess the credibility and reliability of information on Wikipedia in Basque and analyse whether the experience of being a Wikipedia editor helps to improve students’ perceptions of Wikipedia’s trustworthiness. The purpose of this project was to help students to better understand the credibility mechanisms of Wikipedia in Basque regarding the work of editing and creating entries. Do students’ perceptions about how reliable Wikipedia is change if they receive training as Wikipedia content editors and understand Wikipedia’s credibility mechanisms? What are their perceptions about the credibility of Wikipedia?

The authors observed and analysed students’ behaviour and perceptions when creating Wikipedia articles and learning about the process of evaluating Wikipedia. This research was carried out at [masked for review] over four consecutive years, where 188 students in the Degree Programme in Audiovisual Communication participated through a questionnaire and in-depth interviews.

After the experience of creating content on Wikipedia and learning about Wikipedia’s credibility mechanisms experientially, the majority of students reported that their perception of Wikipedia’s credibility had increased, and 70% of students believed Wikipedia to be reliable or more reliable than expected. A smaller number of students stated that understanding Wikipedia’s editing processes decreased their perception of Wikipedia’s credibility.

This project will lead to a better understanding of the performance of students in editing content on Wikipedia and of the impact that this editing experience has on students’ perceptions of credibility with respect to Wikipedia. It will make it possible to better incorporate Wikipedia content editing into the learning processes of students and citizens. This study provides interesting keys to improving the reliability and credibility of Wikipedia among students.

As the study examined Basque Wikipedia, it has important social implications since Basque is a minority language and Wikipedia is the main sources of information for students who study in Basque.

The authors have been analysing the credibility of information in general and that of information on Wikipedia in particular since 2010. Based on this experience, the authors decided to design this study so that it was carried out while the students were creating and editing Wikipedia content as part of a project in their educational curriculum. Furthermore, the study expands the body of research carried out to date by incorporating the perspectives of media studies students.

Wikipedia's inclusive editorial policy permits unrestricted participation, enabling individuals to contribute and disseminate their expertise while drawing upon a multitude of external sources. News media outlets constitute nearly one-third of all citations within Wikipedia. However, embracing such a radically open approach also poses the challenge of the potential introduction of biased content or viewpoints into Wikipedia. The authors conduct an investigation into the integrity of knowledge within Wikipedia, focusing on the dimensions of source political polarization and trustworthiness. Specifically, the authors delve into the conceivable presence of political polarization within the news media citations on Wikipedia, identify the factors that may influence such polarization within the Wikipedia ecosystem and scrutinize the correlation between political polarization in news media sources and the factual reliability of Wikipedia's content.

The authors conduct a descriptive and regression analysis, relying on Wikipedia Citations, a large-scale open dataset of nearly 30 million citations from English Wikipedia. Additionally, this dataset has been augmented with information obtained from the Media Bias Monitor (MBM) and the Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC).

The authors find a moderate yet significant liberal bias in the choice of news media sources across Wikipedia. Furthermore, the authors show that this effect persists when accounting for the factual reliability of the news media.

The results contribute to Wikipedia’s knowledge integrity agenda in suggesting that a systematic effort would help to better map potential biases in Wikipedia and find means to strengthen its neutral point of view policy.

In this study, the authors look at the case of Ferdinand Marcos, President of the Philippines between 1965 and 1986. Documenting the life and career of Marcos on Wikipedia provides an excellent example of the pitfalls confronting those seeking to address disinformation without first reflecting deeply on the reasons why people subscribe to views deemed outlandish by the intellectual or cultural mainstream.

The authors sampled the version of the Marcos article on Wikipedia as it existed after the first edit of each year since its inception (2002). This resulted in 22 texts for analysis. Content and thematic analyses were conducted on these texts as well as on the entire body of talk page comments for the article.

The authors' work suggests that the basic elements of responsible encyclopedic writing have prevailed in the case of Wikipedia's biography of Marcos. However, this is not an unalloyed victory, as issues of polarization remain unaddressed.

Underlying revisionist or distorted claims about Ferdinand Marcos (and other controversial topics) lie very real grievances that give these claims traction for many people. Hence, it is not enough to “just present the facts” to readers. Rather, the authors argue that what is needed is a synthesis of positions that would allow for common ground to be found between them. This could be done in the case of Wikipedia by cultivating editors who are capable and willing to engage with the subject literature in a deeper and richer fashion.

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of Persian Scientific Papers (PSPs) on Persian Wikipedia by studying Wikipedia's citations to these papers.

The present study is applied research, which has been performed by the web-mining method, such as downloading web pages, extracting information (references), identifying papers, detecting peer-review journals and calculating the frequency rates. The statistical population included 10,000 Persian Wikipedia Pages (PWPs) that were analyzed in two rounds with a six-month interval.

The number of pages containing the Persian references section was 3,994 and 4,063 out of the 10,000 pages extracted in the first and second rounds. The ratio of pages that cited scientific sources (58 and 67 pages) to the pages extracted from the PWP was equal to 0.58 and 0.67%. The ratio of pages that cited scientific sources to pages with Persian references in each round was equal to 1.45 and 1.64%. The number of references extracted from the PWP in each round equaled 30,441 and 35,891. Eight titles from reputable Persian journals had received at least three citations from Wikipedia.

The present study has determined the extent of interaction between science and society (knowledge flow) in the form of citations from Wikipedia articles to articles in peer-reviewed journals. The study of this issue in Persian Wikipedia in more than 2000 Persian peer-reviewed journals shows the originality of the present paper. Studying citation reliability in a collaborative and openly editable platform is another originality of the work.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential benefits and challenges of using large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to edit Wikipedia.

The first portion of this paper provides background about Wikipedia and LLMs, explicating briefly how each works. The paper's second section then explores both the ways that LLMs can be used to make Wikipedia a stronger site and the challenges that these technologies pose to Wikipedia editors. The paper's final section explores the implications for information professionals.

This paper argues that LLMs can be used to proofread Wikipedia articles, outline potential articles and generate usable Wikitext. The pitfalls include the technology's potential to generate text that is plagiarized or violates copyright, its tendency to produce “original research” and its tendency to generate incorrect or biased information.

While there has been limited discussion among Wikipedia editors about the use of LLMs when editing the site, hardly any scholarship has been given to how these models can impact Wikipedia's development and quality. This paper thus aims to fill this gap in knowledge by examining both the potential benefits and pitfalls of using LLMs on Wikipedia.

The purpose of this study is to examine the quality of information in articles in the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, as perceived by readers and content contributors. This study explored several dimensions and characteristics of information presented in Wikipedia by identifying new emerging dimensions in terms of readers’ perceptions of the quality of online information.

Two rounds of online surveys were conducted using a mixed-method approach. In the first survey, the authors conducted content analysis on 197 participants, and in the second survey, the authors conducted factor analysis on 107 study participants. The authors used Qualtrics Panel Services to recruit individuals who read and/or edited the English version of Wikipedia articles and resided in the United States.

The mixed-method approach employed in this study to explore the quality of online information had three core components: users’ perceptions of information quality, content analysis, and exploratory factor analysis of the perceived information quality structure. The study found a new information quality category, social aspect quality. Dimensions include fun, goodness, empowering and user generated.

The results demonstrate the emergence of novel quality attributes for information quality presented online, particularly in social media. Moreover, this study is one of the rare studies to employ a mixed-method approach that offers diverse but reliable perspectives on information quality as perceived by everyday users of Wikipedia.

To add new empirical knowledge to debates about social practices of peer production communities, and to conversations about bias and its implications for democracy. To help identify Wikipedia (WP) articles that are affected by systematic bias and hopefully help alleviate the impact of such bias on the general public, thus helping enhance both traditional (e.g. libraries) and online information services (e.g. Google) in ways that contribute to democracy. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objectives.

Quantitatively, the authors identify edit-warring camps across many conflict zones of the English language WP, and profile and compare success rates and typologies of camp edits in the corresponding topic areas. Qualitatively, the authors analyze the edit war between two senior WP editors that resulted in imbalanced and biased articles throughout a topic area for such editorial characteristics through a close critical reading.

Through a large-scale quantitative study, the authors find that winner-take-all camps exhibit biasing editing behaviors to a much larger extent than the camps they successfully edit-war against, confirming findings of prior small-scale qualitative studies. The authors also confirm the employment of these behaviors and identify other behaviors in the successful silencing of traditional medicinal knowledge on WP by a scientism-biased senior WP editor through close reading.

WP sadly does, as previously claimed, appear to be a platform that represents the biased viewpoints of its most stridently opinionated Western white male editors, and routinely misrepresents scholarly work and scientific consensus, the authors find. WP is therefore in dire need of scholarly oversight and decolonization.

The authors independently verify findings from prior personal accounts of highly power-imbalanced fights of scholars against senior editors on WP through a third-party close reading of a much more power balanced edit war between senior WP editors. The authors confirm that these findings generalize well to edit wars across WP, through a large scale quantitative analysis of unbalanced edit wars across a wide range of zones of contention on WP.

Online collaboration in today's world is a topic of genuine interest to Internet researchers. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of group knowledge heterogeneity (GKH) in open collaboration performance using the mediating mechanisms of group cognition (GC) and interaction to understand the determinants of the success of online open collaboration platforms.

Study findings are based on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), the formal mediation test and moderating effect analysis from Wikipedia's 160 online open collaborative groups.

For online knowledge heterogeneous groups, open collaboration performance is mediated by both GC and collaborative interaction (COL). The mediating role of GC is weak, while the mediating role of COL is strengthened when knowledge complexity (KC) is higher. By dividing group interaction into COL and communicative interaction (COM), the authors also observed that COL is effective for online open collaboration, whereas COM is limited.

These findings suggest that for more heterogeneous large groups, group interaction would explain more variance in performance than GC, offering an in-depth understanding of the relationship between group heterogeneity and open collaboration performance, answering what determines the success of online open collaboration platforms as well as explaining the inconsistency in prior findings. In addition, this study expands the application of Interactive Team Cognition (ITC) theory to the online open collaboration context.

This study aims to discover how domain familiarity and language affect the cognitive load and the strategies applied for the evaluation of search engine results pages (SERP).

This study used an experimental research design. The pattern of the experiment was based upon repeated measures design. Each student was given four SERPs varying in two dimensions: language and content. The criteria of students to decide on the three best links within the SERP, the reasoning behind their selection, and their perceived cognitive load of the given task were the repeated measures collected from each participant.

The evaluation criteria changed according to the language and task type. The cognitive load was reported higher when the content was presented in English or when the content was academic. Regarding the search strategies, a majority of students trusted familiar sources or relied on keywords they found in the short description of the links. A qualitative analysis showed that students can be grouped into different types according to the reasons they stated for their choices. Source seeker, keyword seeker and specific information seeker were the most common types observed.

This study has an international scope with regard to data collection. Moreover, the tasks and findings contribute to the literature on information literacy.