From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search

Conclusions that the authors of the article have drawn from their study. Very often, this field consists of direct quotations from the article.

Pages using the property "Conclusion"

Showing 25 pages using this property.

(previous 25) (next 25)


Autonomously semantifying Wikipedia +We propose bootstrapping the SemanticWeb by miningWikipedia and we identify some unique challenges (lack of redundancy) and opportunities (unique identifiers, user-supplied training data, lists, categories, etc.) of this approach. We also identify additional issues resulting from Wikipedia’s growth through decentralized authoring (e.g., inconsistency, schema drift, etc.). This high-level analysis should benefit future work onWikipedia and similar collaborative knowledge repositories. • We describe a systems for automatically generating attribute/value pairs summarizing an article’s properties. Based on self-supervised learning, KYLIN achieves performance which is roughly comparable with that of human editors. In one case, KYLIN does even better. • By automatically identifying missing internal links for proper nouns, more semantic tags are added. Because these links resolve noun phrases to unique identifiers, they are useful for many purposes such as information retrieval, structural analysis, and further semantic processing. Meaning lies in the graph structure of concepts defined in terms of each other, and KYLIN helps complete that graph. • Collaboratively authored data is rife with noise and incompleteness. We identify robust learning methods which can cope in this environment. Extensive experiments demonstrate the performance of our system and characterize some of the crucial architectural choices (e.g., the optimal ordering of heuristics, the utility of classifier-based training data refinement, a pipelined architecture for attribute extraction).
Autopoiesis in virtual organizations +The concept of organizational autopoiesis can help managers to understand the operations of their organizations better. Information systems in organization seem to accept the autopoietic system way of development. Wikipedia is a unique example of knowledge system which ensures users content self-production and autoreferences in an organized way. Simultaneously, many similar autopoietic systems can be identified in open source software development areas. Software applications developed there are recognized as autopoietic systems as well as Web 2.0 information systems belonging to the second generation of virtual communities. Taking into account characteristics of an autopoietic system specified above, they are considered as developed to facilitate collaboration and information sharing among users. They do not refer to the updating Web technologies, but rather to changes in usage of Web platform. End users have the opportunity to create open information systems i.e., craigslist, dodge ball. Their infoproducts are applied for the creation of subsequent infoproducts in an ordered way. Wikipedia is an excellent, the best known example of a closed network of productions of components (i.e. portions of knowledge) that through their relations constitute the network of production that produce them and specify its extension by constituting its boundaries in their domain of existence. While the notion of autopoiesis was invented specifically for the context of the cellular domain and does not translate readily to the domains of the social or the psychological, any system, biological or informational can be analysed in the more generalizable terms of organization and structure. The structure of a system is defined as the concrete components and the actual relations that exist between them which realize the system as a particular composite unity.
Avoiding tragedy in the wiki-commons +Wikipedians contribute to Wikipedia for many reasons. They enjoy the challenges involved in creating new articles and spotting errors in others; they enjoy the fact that their work has altruistic value; they rebel against a proprietary “enemy”; and they build their own knowledge of the world. But, most important, they gain status in a community. When a person writes or edits a first article, that person enters into a common identity shared by every other Wikipedian. Wikipedians can further immerse themselves within their community by becoming increasingly respected for performing good work. Wikipedia is essentially a social club, with status to be gained and lost. ¶ 62 This motivation informs the question of how Wikipedia should optimally be governed. Even with Wikipedia’s goal of moving from quantity to quality, it is critical that the site maintain its dedicated volunteer base. Problems arise with Wikipedia’s current framework of unrestricted editing because it allows for non–truth-seeking inputs. Vandals decrease Wikipedia’s publicly perceived reliability, hurting volunteerism. Bona fide experts are not given due respect by Wikipedian amateurs and are driven away along with their useful knowledge. Ultimately, Wikipedia’s model is only as good as its inputs. ¶ 63 Improvements should therefore be directed toward improving the quality of these inputs without hurting volunteerism. Feedback mechanisms, directed at either editors or articles, fail to solve this problem, although a unique-page-views meter might be a helpful addition to better indicate how many eyeballs have glanced at an article’s bugs. Eliminating anonymity, as the Citizendium will do, also seems a wise choice; identification, even under a nickname, seems a minor burden for writers who have the energy to edit an article. More important, the challenge of incorporating experts without alienating the Wikipedia community will be directly tested in the Citizendium. Experts and accuracy matter greatly, but Wikipedia or the Citizendium will ultimately fall short of their maximum potential unless they continue to foster that underlying community of “crazy people” who are willing to devote their time and energy in the hopes of finding enjoyment, love, and a place to show off.
Awarding the self in Wikipedia: identity work and the disclosure of knowledge +By examining Wikipedia contributions/edits as disclosures rather than additions, attention may be drawn to processes of management and identity work. Here, disclosure is understood as a process of revealing in dialogue with context. This article has suggested with Wikipedia the disclosure of knowledge is entwined with the building and revealing of identity.


Be nice: Wikipedia norms for supportive communication +First, Wikipedia, with its hundreds of norms, might be representative of a new type of large and verbose online community where such an undertaking is necessary to properly appreciate the scope of the community and its culture. Also, such an undertaking might reveal new questions for researchers. For example, the ambiguities and conflicts in the notion of neutrality, the recurrent motif of conflict and drama as being addictive and intoxicating, and the role of humor and sarcasm all merit further investigation. Second, a fuller understanding of norms at Wikipedia might help one undertake comparative studies of wiki communities. For example, ‘‘Assume Good Faith’’ not only appears to be policy throughout most Wikimedia Foundation projects, but can also be found on the Meatball wiki, wikiHow, and Battlestar Wiki. Wookiepedia (the Star Wars focused encyclopedia) does not have its own ‘‘Assume Good Faith’’ policy, but links to the English Wikipedia from its ‘‘No Personal Attacks’’ page (Wookieepedia 2009). One might soon be able to compare different communities’ collections of prosocial norms, and how they emerge and diverge within the larger wiki ecology. Third, gems of collaborative wisdom might be encountered and adopted by practitioners, as Wikipedia norms can also be ‘‘a great way to end an argument in real life’’ (Wikipedia 2006d). For example, based on this work I make use of Wikipedia conflict and its prosocial norms in a university course on conflict management. Students find the Wikipedia context surprising, but they find the norms to be highly relevant to their own interactions both online and offline. It is not that any particular norm is wholly novel, but the collection as a whole is rather comprehensive and surprisingly reflective of conflict management best practices. Finally, while Gibb’s environments are dated, I expect they remain popular because they are widely known among communication scholars and still engage our intuitive sense of defensive or supportive behaviors in interpersonal communications. For the purpose of characterizing Wikipedia norms, I found Gibb’s categories to be appropriate. However, I expect using other Wikipedia norms for supportive communication approaches such as Sillars et al.’s (1982) tactics or Forward and Czech’s (2008) collapsed-Gibb model could be equally so. And while I was not attempting to amend this model myself, the surveyed Wikipedia norms do raise at least two issues. The role of humor, as a supportive or defensive behavior, seems salient and unaddressed. And, in keeping with Forward and Czech, neutrality, even as a type of dispassion, can be both supportive and defensive. With respect to characterizing the surveyed norms, the 26 pages in the behavioral and conduct categories (many of which are a Wikipedia policy or guideline) are supportive. This is so for the rest of the essays, with two caveats. There are a number of pages that are exemplars of a defensive communication climate. This includes ‘‘Assume Bad Faith,’’ ‘‘Hold Grudges,’’ and ‘‘Sarcasm Is Really Helpful’’*among other self-apparent pages in the survey (Wikipedia 2007a, 2008h, 2009ag). But these are all parodies: humorous (counter) examples of what not to do. Also, a number of pages recognize the difficulty in balancing between different Wikipedia values. For example, as already noted, in a discussion of neutrality, one should be impassioned and empathic, but not to the point of being embittered or burnt out. One should ‘‘Assume Good Faith,’’ but not permit oneself or Wikipedia to be abused. And one should be able to abide by policy and process, but not get too caught up in it. However, this balancing seems to be inescapable and prudently supportive rather than defensive. Of course, this does not mean these norms are always followed, far from it. They developed in response to positive and negative experiences by Wikipedians, cross-reference each other, and are cited in discussion pages. In any case, Wikipedia does have a communication climate and set of cultural norms and these are important beyond institutional mechanisms. These norms are often cognizant of the significant challenges of working with one another, particularly in the online context, without being cynical*though many are humorously ironic. And in these pages, such as ‘‘Be Nice’’ because it’s good for the project, one can sense an underlying schoolyard-like ethic: share, be nice, and play fairly. Also, these norms are ultimately pragmatic. While a fundamental moral principle might be invoked, such that being nice is simply ‘‘the right thing to do,’’ the norms are concerned with making sure Wikipedia collaboration is productive and enjoyable.
Becoming wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia +For the mean time, by describing the activity systems in which newcomers and established Wikipedians participate, we see concrete examples of how participation is transformed in an online collaborative project. As their participation becomes more central and frequent, participants in Wikipedia adopt new goals, new roles, and use different tools although they are doing so in the same “place.” Their perceptions of Wikipedia change. They identify the site, not as a random collection of articles, but as a community of co-authors who play distinct roles and have distinct talents as they build a resource. They move from a local focus on individual articles to a concern for the quality of the Wikipedia content as a whole and the health of the community. As Wikipedia users move from legitimate peripheral participation to full community involvement, the activities and structures that mediate them necessarily become more complex. There is a disparity between the tremendous increase in the complexity of Wikipedian activity compared to novice activity and the relatively unchanged context of participation. Novices and Wikipedians are using the same site. For the most part, they have access to the same set of tools and are cooperating in the same virtual place that has the same set of affordances, with the same group of collaborators. Applying the AT framework over time helps reveal the many externally imperceptible ways that participation is transformed as newcomers establish themselves in this community.
Beyond Google: how do students conduct academic research? +This study explored assumptions about how students, majoring in humanities and social sciences, used the Internet for course–related research. Our data revealed the student research process is more complex than a Google search and a scant perusal of a results page, as some research has suggested. A majority of students do not understand what quality research resources are and how to locate them. As a result, students seek a balanced approach to course–related research, leveraging both online and offline resources. We found students: (1) accessed convenient, vetted, and aggregated online resources from course readings and the campus library Web site, (2) to a lesser extent, used Internet sites, such as Yahoo!, Google, and Wikipedia, and (3) worked with professors or librarians one–on–one to narrow down searches and clarify expectations for assignments. Whether these findings hold with students from other campuses is unclear. Further research needs to be conducted on campuses with different study populations. Nevertheless, data presented in this paper may help inform discussion about students’ competencies for locating, selecting, evaluating and using information — competencies developed over time and essential for lifelong learning [3]. Recommendations We offer three recommendations, based on our findings, for improving the student research process in a digital age: Research assignment handouts disseminated to students should include details about expectations for conducting quality research, including the use of the Internet. Professors and librarians should recognize students’ needs for individualized coaching, so that students’ abilities to find, select, and evaluate resources may be improved. Above all, the value of “high touch” interactions (human–mediated) with students in addition to “high tech” interactions (computer–mediated) should not be underestimated.
Beyond the legacy of the enlightenment? Online encyclopaedias as digital heterotopias +To sum up, claiming that Wikipedia constitutes a break with enlightenment and with modernity would go too far, but it seems save to say that it represents a fissure. In many ways, Wikipedia has come to symbolise contemporary views on knowledge. It does that in its striving for neutrality through the simultaneous representations of different versions of knowledge, held in place with references, and in the way in which it enhances the status of lay people as well as in its functioning as a space for our cultural memory, in all its versions. Thus, the online encyclopaedic project of Wikipedia embodies not the end of knowledge as we know it, but rather the marriage between modernity and late modernity within the heterotopian spaces of Wikipedia’s different language versions. In this sense, while a cynical interpretation of Wikipedia’s reliance on other texts and outside sources, could be called ‘source positivism’, or be described as a late modern strategy in which text is everything, seeing it as a digital heterotopia allows us to offer a more positive interpretation. Since we understand Wikipedia in spatial terms as a site of juxtaposition and simultaneity, a digital memory place in which people meet and create knowledge and knowledge structures, and most of all as a space which constantly changes, it points to a more fundamental shift. Our metaphorical heroes from the start of the paper, Bouvard and Pécuchet, have found something worthwhile to do, in Wikipedia writing is doing and copying is no longer a sign of defeat.
Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls +Despite the fact that Wikipedia sysops perceive major differences between hackers and trolls, partially because trolls do not appear to act on any ideologies, our study concludes that Wikipedia trolls are one type of hacker and that their behaviours and motivations resemble those of hackers. This paper extends and supports prior research on the behaviours of internet trolls [5] and rough users [26], and argues that Wikipedia trolls’ motivations resemble those of online hackers [22, 24, 30]. The first step for security policy formulation and implementation for an online and a virtual environment is to understand motivations and behaviours of various types of vandals, hackers and trolls. Future research on Wikipedia may focus attention on the trolls’ perspective, rather than the point of view of the sysops. Research into the activities of trolls on Wikipedias in other languages or various wiki-projects may elucidate the interactions between Wikipedians and trolls in different communities and examine how different settings may affect trolls’ behaviours.
BinRank: scaling dynamic authority-based search using materialized subgraphs +In this paper, we proposed BinRank as a practical solution for scalable dynamic authority-based ranking. It is based on partitioning and approximation using a number of materialized subgraphs. We showed that our tunable system offers a nice trade-off between query time and preprocessing cost. We introduce a greedy algorithm that groups co-occurring terms into a number of bins for which we compute materialized subgraphs. Note that the number of bins is much less than the number of terms. The materialized subgraphs are computed offline by using ObjectRank itself. The intuition behind the approach is that a subgraph that contains all objects and links relevant to a set of related terms should have all the information needed to rank objects with respect to one of these terms. Our extensive experimental evaluation confirms this intuition.
Biographical social networks on Wikipedia - a cross-cultural study of links that made history +...biographical connections are recorded differently in the distinct language versions of Wikipedia.
Breaking the knowledge acquisition bottleneck through conversational knowledge management +Wiki technology and the wiki way of collaboration show a feasible model for knowledge acquisition and maintenance. Wikipedia offers an illustration of the effectiveness of this approach. The research demonstrates that users of a wiki-based knowledge asset (i.e., Wikipedia) apply Bazaar-style methods and techniques in their conversational knowledge asset creation. The research also suggests that knowledge acquisition through collaboration and conversation can lead to super-linear knowledge asset growth and continuous quality improvement. Not surprisingly, there are several caveats. For instance, knowledge quality cannot be measured or managed easily. The quality of Wikipedia articles, for instance, remains a source of arguments. Therefore, future research will need to investigate the quality of the resulting knowledge based on content. In addition, knowledge creation with wikis relies on a strong and positive social contract among its contributors and on subject matters that are not controversial. These conditions are not always present. Wikipedia does have guidelines in place to handle disorderly participants and to maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV) in articles. But Wikipedia clearly relies on the social capital within its community. Studies of less strong communities will have to be part of the future research in order to determine knowledge losses due to lack of social capital. Furthermore, Bazaar-style knowledge management relies on volunteers who are genuinely interested in the cause. This may not be a paradigm for organizations where knowledge assets are not free. Future research will need to explore the applicability of open source knowledge management when the intellectual property is at least partially proprietary. Finally, the discussed approach to knowledge management appears to work, partly because it can engage increasing numbers of participants to deal with a growing task domain. One has to wonder about the limits of growth of this scenario. Considering both the positive findings and the challenging questions, it appears that Bazaar-style knowledge acquisition using wikis will be a promising application for the practice of knowledge management as well as a rich source of interesting research questions.
Bridging domains using world wide knowledge for transfer learning +By conducting experiments on different difficult domain adaptation tasks, we show that our algorithm can significantly outperform several existing domain adaptation approaches in situations when the source and target domains are far from each other. In each case, an auxiliary domain can be used to fill in the information gap efficiently. We make three major contributions in this paper. 1) Instead of the traditional instance-based or feature-based perspective to view the problem of domain adaptation, we view the problem from a new perspective, i.e., we consider the problem of transfer learning as one of filling in the information gap based on a large document corpus. We show that we can obtain useful information to bridge the source and the target domains from auxiliary data sources. 2) Instead of devising new models for tackling the domain adaptation problems, we show that we can successfully bridge the source and target domains using well developed semisupervised learning algorithms. 3) We propose a minmargin algorithm that can effectively identify and reduce the information gap between two domains.
Building semantic kernels for text classification using Wikipedia +To the best of our knowledge, this paper represents a first attempt to improve text classification by defining concept-based kernels using Wikipedia. Our approach overcomes the limitations of the bag-of-words approach by incorporating background knowledge derived from Wikipedia into a semantic kernel, which is then used to enrich the content of documents. This methodology is able to keep multi-word concepts unbroken, it captures the semantic closeness to synonyms, and performs word sense disambiguation for polysemous terms. We note that our approach to highlight the semantic content of documents, from the definition of a proximity matrix, to the disambiguation of terms and to the identification of eligible candidate concepts, is totally unsupervised, i.e. makes no use of the class labels associated to documents. Thus, the same enrichment procedure could be extended to enhance the clustering of documents, when indeed class labels are not available, or too expensive to obtain. On the other hand, for classification problems where class labels are available, one could use them to facilitate the disambiguation process, and the identification of crucial concepts in a document.


Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past +Perhaps as a result, Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history In the 25 biographies I read closely, I found clear-cut factual errors in only 4. Most were small and inconsequential. Wikipedia, then, beats Encarta but not American National Bioff^aphy Online in coverage and roughly matches Encara in accuracy.
Categorising social tags to improve folksonomy-based recommendations +Analysing our categorisation results, we found that, in most of the cases, ambiguities occurred with social tags classified into both content and context categories, especially in those cases where the social tags corresponded to locations. Thus, although it would be convenient to correctly disambiguate and classify such tags, the results obtained with our recommendation model are still valid as its most accurate recommendations were obtained exploiting content- and context-based tags. Ambiguities in subjective and organisational tags may occur but their influence in the recommendations is relatively much lower. Nonetheless, for recommendation purposes, we find very interesting the possibility of exploring sentiment analysis approaches to enhance our subjective and organisational tag categorisation strategy based on regular expressions. As discussed in the paper, theremayexist incorrect tag assignments to subjective subcategories. For example, the tag bad hotel is categorised by our approach as a “quality” tag as it satisfies the [*<adjective><noun>*] regular expression, whereas it should be categorised as an “opinion” tag.
Characterizing and modeling the dynamics of online popularity +We find that the dynamics of popularity are characterized by bursts, displaying characteristic features of critical systems such as fat-tailed distributions of magnitude and inter-event time. We propose a minimal model combining the classic preferential popularity increase mechanism with the occurrence of random popularity shifts due to exogenous factors. The model recovers the critical features observed in the empirical analysis of the systems analyzed here, highlighting the key factors needed in the description of popularity dynamics.
Chemical information media in the chemistry lecture hall: a comparative assessment of two online encyclopedias +Both encyclopedias obtained very good ratings. However, in the overall rating, Roempp Online became victim of its terse and concise scientific writing style, because in their learning process students attach importance rather to completeness and comprehensibility than to exactness and accuracy. Neither Roempp nor Wikipedia were designed with the student in mind and to support teaching and learning. Both encyclopedias are written by peers for peers, Wikipedia mostly by non-experts for students, scholars, and the general public, Roempp online by experts for experts. Wikipedia articles are easier to understand because their content and language are more textbook-like. GIven the survey results, it is remarkable that students do not pay more attention to number, type, and quality of sources cited in encyclopedia articles, and have a fuzzy understanding of their importance to support and validate the statements made. This is especially important in the case of Wikipedia where anyone can edit articles. Frequent use of Wikipedia articles by students is a fact; students do trust this information. Both Roempp and Wikipedia can be recommended as a starting reference...but should be informed to use primary literature and secondary references ( handbooks, databases) in their reports so that students become acquainted with the system of peer-reviewed chemistry literature as early as possible.
Clustering short texts using Wikipedia +Giving greater importance to the title of a news article is beneficial. We obtained better results by doubling the weights of the concepts retrieved by the title query string. A new representation of the given article was generated by augmenting this vector to the term frequency vector constructed by the first method. We refer to this representation method as Wiki_Method...We have proposed a method of improving the accuracy of clustering short text items using Wikipedia as an additional knowledge source. Our experiment shows that this method can substantially improve clustering accuracy. The results obtained here also corroborate the recent findings that world knowledge can help in the different information retrieval tasks.
Co-authorship 2.0: patterns of collaboration in Wikipedia +"The results mark a considerable difference with respect to most of the scientific collaboration networks: very low values of mean distance and diameter, a quite low and decreasing clustering coefficient, and disassortative mixing by degree. We find evidence of a strong centralization of the network around some stars, a considerable nucleus of very active users, who seem to be omnipresent." "The disassortativity of the networks is a signal that the most active contributors tend to interact with the less experienced users, spreading over the whole wiki, rather than to collaborate with each other. In this continuous relationship between the core and the periphery of the community can perhaps be found one of the constituting characteristics of the Wikipedia community."
Codifying collaborative knowledge: using Wikipedia as a basis for automated ontology learning +We have proposed and illustrated an application of a semiautomatic approach to collaborative ontology learning that shows promising results when compared to two Gold standard hand-crafted ontologies with over 90% CC reached in 1-h effort by a non-expert. Our emerging ability to incorporate such knowledge in ontologies as the basis for knowledge management tools will result in richer, more precise, and more relevant knowledge codification, in an ever-changing world in which access to social knowledge plays an increasingly important role. As we advance testing of the ontology learning component, we expect that the impact on a broader engineering methodology will be substantial, and yet, much more work is needed in this area. Using additional meta-knowledge characteristics of the collaborative corpus as provided by the Wikipedia, API also opens up a number of interesting directions as mentioned above.
Collaboration in context: comparing article evolution among subject disciplines in Wikipedia +Across the subject disciplines in this sample, Add link and Add information were the most common contribution types. Vandalism ranked eighth out of the 13 contribution types, suggesting its persistence as a quality issue on Wikipedia. For the accompanying article Talk pages, Requests/suggestions for editing coordination was the most common type of contribution, followed by Information boxes. Completeness was the most frequent article quality issue raised among these Talk page discussions, followed by Accessibility and Accuracy. Additionally, a relationship was observed between Talk page discussion and editing of the Talk page’s accompanying article; however, not all of the interactions between Talk pages and articles resulted in positive editing activity, as in several instances vandalism was an outcome. Several issues raised on the Talk pages remained unaddressed by Wikipedians, but nonetheless, it is evident that Talk pages have an integral role to play in the collaborative process, as Stvilia, et al. (2005b) and Viégas, et al. (2007) observed. Across the articles in this sample the majority of Wikipedia editors only perform one type of editing activity per contribution, in contrast to initial article creators, who perform a range of contribution types over a series of edits. Isolating edits of two contribution types, Add information and Add link was the mode combination. A high percentage of repeat editors provided edits of three or more contribution types, suggesting a relationship between frequency of article editing and range in contribution types. The first–mover advantage, noted by Viégas, et al. (2004), was also observed among all articles in this sample, where a considerable amount of the original article text remained over time, and an inverse relationship was found between article age and the proportion of initial article text remaining. Counter to previous findings (Brändle, 2005; Dondio, et al., 2006; Lih, 2004; Stvilia, et al., 2005a, 2008; Wilkinson and Huberman, 2007), the articles in this sample with the highest number of edits were not found to be of the highest quality. While the hard sciences articles had the highest level of article quality overall, they were still lacking in several key areas, such as successfully answering all w–questions. Similarly, while the hard sciences performed the best on both the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level tests, affirming previous findings (Hartley, et al., 2004; Tibbo, 1992), none of the articles in this sample achieved a plain English level of readability. In contrast to traditional encyclopedias — and even Simple Wikipedia itself — Wikipedia proper lacks an explicitly stated purpose and, correspondingly, lacks guidelines for writing articles at a reading level appropriate for its intended audience. In turn, the high level of textual difficulty observed in the articles in this study undermines Wikipedia’s more general aim of being accessible to everyone. Taken together, these results suggest considerable variability in the quality level of Wikipedia articles across subject disciplines, likely resulting from the fact that each article does not receive an equal amount of attention or scrutiny. How much confidence one should have in an article whose content is continually under discussion and revision remains an open question. However, while the constant flux of Wikipedia is often cited, the articles in this sample suggest a remarkable consistency in article content over time and the considerable influence that the initial creator has over the article by essentially providing a framework on which future editing is built. Additionally, as the observations between Talk page discussion and editing of a given article reveal, raising one’s concerns about an article is likely to result in change to that article. Therefore, contributions to Talk pages — in addition to article edits themselves — provide Wikipedians with a powerful means of shaping the presentation of knowledge.
Collaborative authoring on the web: a genre analysis of online encyclopedias +The results of the four-way comparison reveal a continuum of formality and standardization, with the traditional encyclopedia and the interactive discussion at opposite extremes. Wikipedia and Everything2 differ significantly from one another, with Wikipedia towards the formal, standardized end, and Everything2 towards the informal, variable end of the continuum. Surprisingly, Wikipedia is statistically indistinguishable from the print encyclopedia in terms of the formality features measured in this study. These findings suggest that what we have heretofore been considering as the genre of online encyclopedia is not a uniform set of communicative practices. Wikipedia and Everything2 have functional and structural characteristics in common: they aim to be repositories of general knowledge, they are available online, their contents are searchable, their entries make use of hyperlinks, they are created by multiple non-expert authors who form a community around the practice of creating content for the site, and they are consulted (to varying degrees) by Internet users seeking information on a wide range of topics. These commonalities justify considering the two sites as exemplars of a single genre, according to the standard definition of a genre as recurrent communication characterized by a common purpose, structures, and participant roles (cf. Yates & Orlikowski, 1992).
Collectivism vs. individualism in a wiki world: librarians respond to Jaron Lanier's essay 'Digital Maoism: the hazards of the new online collectivism' +In all fairness, Wikipedia is not the only thing that we urge our patrons to use carefully. Because writing, creating, aggregating and disseminating information have all become easier with the advent of the Internet, the Internet has empowered anyone who is interested in information. Students are convinced that resources like Google and Wikipedia have what they need. Perhaps because students perceive these as being easier and being a more understandable way of searching for information, or perhaps it is just laziness. Collectivism has added a revolutionary dimension to the world of online information. It is both exciting and daunting; so many more people can contribute ideas or review information for accuracy, yet we now live in a world where encyclopedias have risk disclaimers. We do not know how long collective action will continue to drive information collaboration online or how Wikipedia will continue to evolve or even exist. We do know that as everyone deals with the information deluge, librarians will still be a valuable resource for helping patrons evaluate the accuracy and integrity of information sources.
Commons-based peer production and virtue +We have argued that participation in commons-based peer production fosters important moral and political virtues. We have not made the case that it is therefore incumbent upon the state to support peer production. That would require a greater commitment to a perfectionist state agenda than we have stated or defended here, or are willing to defend. Nonetheless, we have offered new reasons to find peer production to be a morally attractive set of social, cultural and economic practices. There is a growing literature on the relative efficiency of peer production in many domains of information production, and some exploration of its attractiveness from the perspective of a variety of liberal commitments: to democracy, autonomy and social justice.
(previous 25) (next 25)