WikiLit: A literature review of scholarly research on Wikipedia
Please contact us at wikilit - at - okoli.org.
To attribute your use of this data in accordance with the CC-BY-SA license, please cite our working paper.
For setting up the templates and the semantic links we have used some of the forms provided on emijrp's http://wikipapers.referata.com. Many of the fields of the template in Wikilit follows the convention of Wikipapers.
Key details of this literature review
- We describe the methodology in detail in a working paper.
- We focus only on research on Wikipedia, not on any other wiki.
- We focused mainly on peer-reviewed journal articles (over 300) and PhD dissertations (over 25), and have systematically sought to include these. It is a huge project, and we had to draw a limit to what we would mainly focus on.
- We have identified over 1,500 conference papers which we list with their abstracts. However, in our detailed analysis we have included only 70 or so of the most highly-cited conference papers. Because of our limited time and resources, unfortunately we were unable to analyze more than that in detail. However, we can certainly do detailed analysis of any important conference papers that we left out--please point them out!
- Our cut-off date for inclusion is June 2011, after which the Wikimedia Research Newsletter was formally inaugurated; we're letting them pick up from where we stop.
- We have submitted a presentation proposal for Wikimania 2012.
Request for help
Please help us verify the accuracy of our data extraction so far. Practically, if you could take a look at your own publications and the publications you know well, that would be great. It's an open wiki, so please make any corrections directly, even anonymously. (However, if you want us to acknowledge your contributions, please create a user account and identify yourself on your user page.) In particular, please help us with the following:
- Please correct any inaccuracies you see, or e-mail us at wikilit - at - okoli.org to notify us of them.
- Please point out any peer-reviewed journal articles or PhD dissertations we have missed that were published before July 2011; we will certainly add these.
- Please point out any other scholarly studies (especially conference articles and significant non-peer-reviewed work) that you feel should definitely be analyzed in detail. Although we have listed 1,500 conference papers, our limited time and resources only permits us to analyze a fraction of them in detail. So, please help us highlight the most important ones that we have not analyzed in detail, with a brief explanation of why they are particularly important.
- Please add any scholarly studies about Wikipedia that we have left out! Our restrictions in what we include are purely pragmatic due to time and resource limitations. If you want to add anything that we say that we don't have the time to do ourselves, please feel free to do so! Please add your own research and those of others that you know well. However, if you add a new article, please be sure to ***fill all input fields***, since we will generally exclude any article with incomplete data in our final analysis.
- Please suggest any data analysis or visualizations you would like to see as we synthesize the data.
- Please give any other feedback or suggestion that can help us make this dataset more useful to researchers!
The data is publicly available (the license is CC-BY-SA ***dual?***, except for copyrighted abstracts), but this is a beta release and there are probably a lot of errors. We hope to have a stable and very clean dataset within a couple months, both from community help and from our own internal quality control processes; we'll make another announcement when we feel it has reached "featured" quality. In particular, please wait a bit before exporting the data to other research collection websites and wikis until it is in a cleaner state; by then, we'll help make it available in as many export formats as practical.
- What is the quality of surgery-related information on the Internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations
- Wikipedia and the emergence of dialogic expertise