The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
Authors: Anna Samoilenko, Taha Yasseri [edit item]
Citation: EPJ Data Science 3 : 1. 2014. Springer.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s): arXiv (arXiv/1310.8508)
DOI: 10.1140/epjds20.
Google Scholar cites: Not available
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Yes
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Format: BibTeX
The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics is a publication by Anna Samoilenko, Taha Yasseri.

[edit] Abstract

Activity of modern scholarship creates online footprints galore. Along with traditional metrics of research quality, such as citation counts, online images of researchers and institutions increasingly matter in evaluating academic impact, decisions about grant allocation, and promotion. We examined 400 biographical Wikipedia articles on academics from four scientific fields to test if being featured in the world's largest online encyclopedia is correlated with higher academic notability (assessed through citation counts). We found no statistically significant correlation between Wikipedia articles metrics (length, number of edits, number of incoming links from other articles, etc.) and academic notability of the mentioned researchers. We also did not find any evidence that the scientists with better WP representation are necessarily more prominent in their fields. In addition, we inspected the Wikipedia coverage of notable scientists sampled from Thomson Reuters list of "highly cited researchers". In each of the examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly. Both findings imply that Wikipedia might be producing an inaccurate image of academics on the front end of science. By shedding light on how public perception of academic progress is formed, this study alerts that a subjective element might have been introduced into the hitherto structured system of academic evaluation.

[edit] Research questions

"Are there correlation for living academics between Wikipedia article parameters and parameters from citation indexes of the academics?"

Research details

Topics: Comprehensiveness, Knowledge source for scholars and librarians, Ranking and popularity [edit item]
Domains: Information science [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: [edit item]
Research design: Statistical analysis [edit item]
Data source: Archival records, Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article, Subject [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly"

[edit] Comments

Further notes[edit]