What's on Wikipedia, and what's not ... ? Assessing completeness of information

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
What's on Wikipedia, and what's not ... ? Assessing completeness of information
Authors: Cindy Royal, Deepina Kapila [edit item]
Citation: Social Science Computer Review 27 (1): 138-48. 2009.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.1177/0894439308321890.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
What's on Wikipedia, and what's not ... ? Assessing completeness of information is a publication by Cindy Royal, Deepina Kapila.


[edit] Abstract

The World Wide Web continues to grow closer to achieving the vision of becoming the repository of all human knowledge, as features and applications that support user-generated content become more prevalent. Wikipedia is fast becoming an important resource for news and information. It is an online information source that is increasingly used as the first, and sometimes only, stop for online encyclopedic information. Using a method employed by Tankard and Royal to judge completeness of Web content, completeness of information on Wikipedia is assessed. Some topics are covered more comprehensively than others, and the predictors of these biases include recency, importance, population, and financial wealth. Wikipedia is more a socially produced document than a value-free information source. It reflects the viewpoints, interests, and emphases of the people who use it.

[edit] Research questions

"Using a method employed by Tankard and Royal to judge completeness of Web content, completeness of information on Wikipedia is assessed. Borrowing from the original study of completeness of information on the Web, the following research questions were developed as they related to Wikipedia: 1. Are there some systematic gaps or biases in the overall presentation of information made available on Wikipedia? 2. Is recency (or currency) a predictor of amount of information on Wikipedia? 3. Is importance of information a predictor of amount of information on Wikipedia? 4. Is population a predictor of amount of information about particular countries on Wikipedia? 5. Is economic power a predictor of amount of information about individual corporations on Wikipedia?"

Research details

Topics: Comprehensiveness [edit item]
Domains: Information science [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis, Explanation [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Statistical analysis [edit item]
Data source: Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Website [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article, Other [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Some topics are covered more comprehensively than others, and the predictors of these biases include recency, importance, population, and financial wealth. Wikipedia is more a socially produced document than a value-free information source. It reflects the viewpoints, interests, and emphases of the people who use it."

[edit] Comments

"Some topics are covered more comprehensively than others, and the predictors of these biases include recency, importance, population, and financial wealth."


Further notes[edit]