Comparing featured article groups and revision patterns correlations in Wikipedia

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Comparing featured article groups and revision patterns correlations in Wikipedia
Authors: Giacomo Poderi [edit item]
Citation: First Monday 14 (5): 9. 2009 May.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: Define doi.
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
Comparing featured article groups and revision patterns correlations in Wikipedia is a publication by Giacomo Poderi.


[edit] Abstract

Collaboratively written by thousands of people, Wikipedia produces entries which are consistent with criteria agreed by Wikipedians and of high quality. This article focuses on Wikipedia's featured articles and shows that not every contribution can be considered as being of equal quality. Two groups of articles are analysed by focusing on the edits distribution and the main editors' contribution. The research shows how these aspects of the revision patterns can change dependent upon the category to which the articles belong.

[edit] Research questions

"The focus of this article is on the revision pattern of the Featured articles and its aim is to investigate possible correlations between the pattern and the resulting quality of the article. In order to do this, I identify two main groups of FA: the high density (HD) and the low density (LD) ones, I then compare their revision patterns to spot any similarities or differences that suggest relevant correlation."

Research details

Topics: Featured articles, Other collaboration topics [edit item]
Domains: Information systems [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Content analysis [edit item]
Data source: Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Longitudinal [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article, Edit, User [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: Not specified [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"At first glance, the Featured Articles are relatively long, make consistent use of references, take advantage of hundreds of editors’ contributions, and are built on thousands of revisions. However, a closer look reveals that not every contribution has the same weight and major edits do not necessarily equate to ‘better edit’ for the article quality. Indeed, the minor edits play an important role in the revision pattern of FA: they consitute 30 percent of the whole editing work either in the HD group and in the LD one. This is consistent with previous finding (Jones, 2008) holding that polishing the article and focusing on small improvements is not a prerogative of low–quality articles.

This article also analysed the role of the main editors (per number of edits) in relation to the article quality. In this regard, the two groups showed interesting differences. Articles where the presence of the main editors is higher tend to become featured more easily. This suggests the importance of a consistent style or a clear imprint during the evolution of the article.

To conclude, this article suggests that future research on revision patterns and quality correlations should not neglect the heterogeneous aspects that exist within the class of objects under investigation."

[edit] Comments

"Polishing the article and focusing on small improvements (minor edits) is not a prerogative of low–quality articles and articles where the presence of the main editors is higher tend to become featured more easily which suggests the importance of a consistent style or a clear imprint during the evolution of the article."


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "Comparing featured article groups and revision patterns correlations in Wikipedia"RDF feed
AbstractCollaboratively written by thousands of peCollaboratively written by thousands of people, Wikipedia produces entries which are consistent with criteria agreed by Wikipedians and of high quality. This article focuses on Wikipedia's featured articles and shows that not every contribution can be considered as being of equal quality. Two groups of articles are analysed by focusing on the edits distribution and the main editors' contribution. The research shows how these aspects of the revision patterns can change dependent upon the category to which the articles belong.the category to which the articles belong.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionLongitudinal +
CommentsPolishing the article and focusing on smalPolishing the article and focusing on small improvements (minor edits) is not a prerogative of low–quality articles and articles where the presence of the main editors is higher tend to become featured more easily which suggests the importance of a consistent style or a clear imprint during the evolution of the article.print during the evolution of the article.
ConclusionAt first glance, the Featured Articles areAt first glance, the Featured Articles are relatively long, make consistent use of references, take advantage of hundreds of editors’ contributions, and are built on thousands of revisions. However, a closer look reveals that not every contribution has the same weight and major edits do not necessarily equate to ‘better edit’ for the article quality. Indeed, the minor edits play an important role in the revision pattern of FA: they consitute 30 percent of the whole editing work either in the HD group and in the LD one. This is consistent with previous finding (Jones, 2008) holding that polishing the article and focusing on small improvements is not a prerogative of low–quality articles.

This article also analysed the role of the main editors (per number of edits) in relation to the article quality. In this regard, the two groups showed interesting differences. Articles where the presence of the main editors is higher tend to become featured more easily. This suggests the importance of a consistent style or a clear imprint during the evolution of the article.

To conclude, this article suggests that future research on revision patterns and quality correlations should not neglect the heterogeneous aspects that exist within the class of objects under investigation.
the class of objects under investigation.
Data sourceWikipedia pages +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Comparing%2Bfeatured%2Barticle%2Bgroups%2Band%2Brevision%2Bpatterns%2Bcorrelations%2Bin%2BWikipedia%22 +
Has authorGiacomo Poderi +
Has domainInformation systems +
Has topicFeatured articles + and Other collaboration topics +
Issue5 +
MonthMay +
Pages9 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inFirst Monday +
Research designContent analysis +
Research questionsThe focus of this article is on the revisiThe focus of this article is on the revision pattern of the Featured articles and its aim is to investigate possible correlations between the pattern and the resulting quality of the article. In order to do this, I identify two main groups of FA: the high density (HD) and the low density (LD) ones, I then compare their revision patterns to spot any similarities or differences that suggest relevant correlation.erences that suggest relevant correlation.
Revid10,705 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleComparing featured article groups and revision patterns correlations in Wikipedia
Unit of analysisArticle +, Edit + and User +
Urlhttp://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2365/2182 +
Volume14 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageNot specified +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +
Year2009 +