An inside view: credibility in Wikipedia from the perspective of editors

From WikiLit
Revision as of 20:20, January 30, 2014 by Fnielsen (Talk | contribs) (Text replace - "|collected_datatype=" to "|data_source=")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
An inside view: credibility in Wikipedia from the perspective of editors
Authors: Helena Francke, Olof Sundin [edit item]
Citation: Information Research 15 (3): . 2010 June.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: Define doi.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Yes
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
An inside view: credibility in Wikipedia from the perspective of editors is a publication by Helena Francke, Olof Sundin.


[edit] Abstract

Introduction. The question of credibility in participatory information environments, particularly Wikipedia, has been much debated. This paper investigates how editors on Swedish Wikipedia consider credibility when they edit and read Wikipedia articles. Method. The study builds on interviews with 11 editors on Swedish Wikipedia, supported by a document analysis of policies on Swedish Wikipedia. Analysis. The interview transcripts have been coded qualitatively according to the participants' use of Wikipedia and what they take into consideration in making credibility assessments. Results. The participants use Wikipedia for purposes where it is not vital that the information is correct. Their credibility assessments are mainly based on authorship, verifiability, and the editing history of an article. Conclusions. The situations and purposes for which the editors use Wikipedia are similar to other user groups, but they draw on their knowledge as members of the network of practice of wikipedians to make credibility assessments, including knowledge of certain editors and of the MediaWiki architecture. Their assessments have more similarities to those used in traditional media than to assessments springing from the wisdom of crowds.

[edit] Research questions

"This paper investigates how editors on Swedish Wikipedia consider credibility when they edit and read Wikipedia articles."

Research details

Topics: Contributor perceptions of credibility [edit item]
Domains: Library science [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "In our analysis, we draw on theories from library and information science, communication studies, organization studies, and education.

Socio-cultural theory Practices can be understood within a socio-cultural framework as iterative tool-based and goal-directed activities (cf. Scribner and Cole 1981: 267). That is, people act by using cultural tools, tools which influence how we think about and do things, such as for instance information practices." [edit item]

Research design: Discourse analysis, Ethnography [edit item]
Data source: Interview responses, Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article, User [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Policy [edit item]
Wikipedia language: Swedish [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Results. The participants use Wikipedia for purposes where it is not vital that the information is correct. Their credibility assessments are mainly based on authorship, verifiability, and the editing history of an article. Conclusions. The situations and purposes for which the editors use Wikipedia are similar to other user groups, but they draw on their knowledge as members of the network of practice of wikipedians to make credibility assessments, including knowledge of certain editors and of the MediaWiki architecture. Their assessments have more similarities to those used in traditional media than to assessments springing from the wisdom of crowds."

[edit] Comments

"The situations and purposes for which the editors use Wikipedia are similar to other user groups, but they draw on their knowledge as members of the network of practice of wikipedians to make credibility assessments, including knowledge of certain editors and of the MediaWiki architecture."


Further notes[edit]

Library and Information Science

Facts about "An inside view: credibility in Wikipedia from the perspective of editors"RDF feed
AbstractIntroduction. The question of credibility Introduction. The question of credibility in participatory information environments, particularly Wikipedia, has been much debated. This paper investigates how editors on Swedish Wikipedia consider credibility when they edit and read Wikipedia articles. Method. The study builds on interviews with 11 editors on Swedish Wikipedia, supported by a document analysis of policies on Swedish Wikipedia. Analysis. The interview transcripts have been coded qualitatively according to the participants' use of Wikipedia and what they take into consideration in making credibility assessments. Results. The participants use Wikipedia for purposes where it is not vital that the information is correct. Their credibility assessments are mainly based on authorship, verifiability, and the editing history of an article. Conclusions. The situations and purposes for which the editors use Wikipedia are similar to other user groups, but they draw on their knowledge as members of the network of practice of wikipedians to make credibility assessments, including knowledge of certain editors and of the MediaWiki architecture. Their assessments have more similarities to those used in traditional media than to assessments springing from the wisdom of crowds.ments springing from the wisdom of crowds.
Added by wikilit teamYes +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
CommentsThe situations and purposes for which the The situations and purposes for which the editors use Wikipedia are similar to other user groups, but they draw on their knowledge as members of the network of practice of wikipedians to make credibility assessments, including knowledge of certain editors and of the MediaWiki architecture.editors and of the MediaWiki architecture.
ConclusionResults. The participants use Wikipedia foResults. The participants use Wikipedia for purposes where it is not vital that the information is correct. Their credibility assessments are mainly based on authorship, verifiability, and the editing history of an article. Conclusions. The situations and purposes for which the editors use Wikipedia are similar to other user groups, but they draw on their knowledge as members of the network of practice of wikipedians to make credibility assessments, including knowledge of certain editors and of the MediaWiki architecture. Their assessments have more similarities to those used in traditional media than to assessments springing from the wisdom of crowds.ments springing from the wisdom of crowds.
Data sourceInterview responses + and Wikipedia pages +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22An%2Binside%2Bview%3A%2Bcredibility%2Bin%2BWikipedia%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2Bperspective%2Bof%2Beditors%22 +
Has authorHelena Francke + and Olof Sundin +
Has domainLibrary science +
Has topicContributor perceptions of credibility +
Issue3 +
MonthJune +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inInformation Research +
Research designDiscourse analysis + and Ethnography +
Research questionsThis paper investigates how editors on Swedish Wikipedia consider credibility when they edit and read Wikipedia articles.
Revid10,661 +
TheoriesIn our analysis, we draw on theories from In our analysis, we draw on theories from library and information science, communication studies, organization studies, and education.

Socio-cultural theory

Practices can be understood within a socio-cultural framework as iterative tool-based and goal-directed activities (cf. Scribner and Cole 1981: 267). That is, people act by using cultural tools, tools which influence how we think about and do things, such as for instance information practices.
uch as for instance information practices.
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleAn inside view: credibility in Wikipedia from the perspective of editors
Unit of analysisArticle + and User +
Urlhttp://informationr.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis702.html +
Volume15 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageSwedish +
Wikipedia page typePolicy +
Year2010 +