Wikipedia for Researchers
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Wikipedia for Researchers

on

  • 748 views

Wikipedia for Researchers talk, as given at the British Library. ...

Wikipedia for Researchers talk, as given at the British Library.

The first part covers Wikipedia as a resource for researchers, looking at how it works, how to judge the reliability of content, and how to use Wikipedia as a starting point to access other resources.

The second part looks at how Wikipedia is used by researchers as a subject or a corpus, and gives an overview of the kinds of research being done on Wikipedia.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
748
Views on SlideShare
747
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

https://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Wikipedia for Researchers Wikipedia for Researchers Presentation Transcript

  • Wikipedia for Researchers Andrew Gray – Wikipedian in Residence andrew.gray@bl.uk / @generalising
  • About Wikipedia & Wikimedia Wikimedia  Movement and charitable body  80,000 contributors in 280 languages and eleven core projects  Image repository, dictionary, news site…  …read by 7% of the world! Wikipedia  19,000,000 articles, 4,000,000 in English  6,500 articles and 235,000 edits per day (…and ten years ago, this was all fields…) 2
  • …so what is Wikipedia? …an encyclopedia …written neutrally and verifiably …using previously published information …free to use, distribute, or reuse …a collaborative community …with no firm rules 3 View slide
  • Internal processes All edits are visible through watchlists and page histories  About 7% are vandalism or malicious; processes to detect these  Median time to correction < 2 minutes… but some stay much longer Individual discussion pages for all articles – “talk” Quality review and assessment process Specialised “wikiproject” working groups and central noticeboards  eg/ content topics; style; dispute resolution; copyright; etc. 4 View slide
  • Quality of Wikipedia On average… it’s not bad  In 2005 four errors per article, versus three in Britannica  In 2011, in English, Spanish & Arabic: “…the Wikipedia articles in this sample scored higher overall than the comparison articles with respect to accuracy, references, style/ readability and overall judgment…” Millions of articles – so many are, individually, problematic  Various ways of identifying “signs” of quality  Markers for quality are both obvious and subtle Very effective “springboard” tool 5
  • Looking for quality Corner icons  - article locked down in some way  - featured or “good” quality Problem tags Article talk pages and histories Style  Badly written or formatted articles = often neglected 6
  • Accessing other content Structured categories and navigational templates “What links here” 7
  • Moving on to other content Other languages – not translations, and may have more content Mousing over footnote markers Within the references:  Links through DOIs and other identifiers  ISBNs go to a special landing page  …and then out to libraries, booksellers, etc  ISSNs go to WorldCat  If an author, look for authority control links: 8
  • Preferences Available to logged in users Two particularly useful options:  New window for external links (Gadgets > Browsing)  Quality assessment in headers (Gadgets > Appearance)  Many others - mostly editor-oriented tools 9
  • Looking for sets of material Some tools available – http://www.toolserver.org  Complex to use, but rewarding CatScan: look for intersection of categories  “all physicists born in 1912” – 51 in English, 34 in German Full dumps of all data available – http://dumps.wikipedia.org 10
  • Research about Wikipedia Thriving research around Wikipedia community & content  by mid-2011, 2100 peer-reviewed articles and 38 PhD theses  Active research committee and WMF support Regular report - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter  also @wikiresearch Major themes include:  Community and content creation  Reading and researching by users  Quality of content  Technical research 11
  • Research on communities Research on the Wikipedia communities:  Dynamics of community conflict, discussions, collaboration, voting, contribution, mentoring…  Demographics, motivation and specialisms of contributors  Patterns of growth and content creation/deletion  Effect of central programs on volunteer activity  Cross-cultural interaction 12
  • Research on users Research on usage of Wikipedia:  Specific searching behaviour  Patterns of usage (yearly, daily)  Tracking external events (eg swine flu) through Wikipedia  Search engine rankings  Change in usage by students  Effect of Wikipedia publication on wider literature 13
  • Research on content Research on the content of Wikipedia:  Evolution of content  Accuracy, coverage and quality  Biases – geographic, cultural, gender  Linguistic analysis  Visualisations of content  Effect of external publications on Wikipedia 14
  • Research on technical aspects Research on the technical side of Wikipedia:  Extensive work on scaling open-content services  Tools for detecting and handling vandalism  Algorithmic detection and identification of bias, spam  Practical research on uses of wikis 15
  • Research example – visualising art history http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikiarthistory.png 16
  • Research example – visualising editing patterns 17 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiTrip_egyptian_revolution_screenshot.png
  • Research example – editor activity http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Effect_of_barnstars_on_productivity.png 18