What we know about Wikipedia: a review of the literature analyzing the project(s)

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
What we know about Wikipedia: a review of the literature analyzing the project(s)
Authors: Nicolas Jullien [edit item]
Citation: SSRN (Working Paper)  : . 2012 May 7.
Publication type: Working paper
Peer-reviewed: No
Database(s):
DOI: Define doi.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Yes
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 we know about Wikipedia: a review of the literature analyzing the project(s) is a publication by Nicolas Jullien.


[edit] Abstract

This article proposes a review of the literature analyzing Wikipedia as a collective system for producing knowledge.

[edit] Research questions

"As we want to study the findings of all these articles [that study Wikipedia], we need a more general framework of understanding of the functioning of these communities, before going deeper in their analysis."

Research details

Topics: Literature review [edit item]
Domains: Information systems [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Carillo and Okoli (2011)’s framework (figure 1, page 5) is rather extensive on the input and process part, but less complete on the output part, as they only focus on the declared quality of the articles by Wikipedia (”regular article with no nomination, featured article nominees that were not accepted, and featured articles”).

Crowston et al. (2006), followed by Lee et al. (2009), propose indicators to analyze the group production (they name ”system creation”), and complete this model, relying on DeLone and McLean (1992, 2002, 2003), with indicators to link the concrete outputs (here article, in their case, open source software) to the user’s satisfaction. ... Finally, Wikipedia is an example of a “knowledge commons” (Hess and Ostrom, 2006b). These authors proposed a framework to understand the production of such common, we present in figure 2, page 6." [edit item]

Research design: Literature review [edit item]
Data source: Scholarly articles [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: N/A [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Scholarly article [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia language: All languages [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"In addition to the doubtful argument that a system of production may replace another, comparing Wikipedia with traditional encyclopedias may simply miss the point. As explained by Mattus (2009): it has to be seen as one entry, always evolving to access to the knowledge, but which any be combined with others (scientific references, traditional encyclopedias), and used as a tool amongst others, and not, as was the Encyclopédie, the deposit of the human knowledge. What Wikipedia shows is the extension of the knowledge and of the sources of knowledge, since the seventeenth century, and thus the never ending need to educate the users to have a critical, scientific reading of any source of knowledge."

[edit] Comments


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "What we know about Wikipedia: a review of the literature analyzing the project(s)"RDF feed
AbstractThis article proposes a review of the literature analyzing Wikipedia as a collective system for producing knowledge.
Added by wikilit teamYes +
Collected data time dimensionN/A +
ConclusionIn addition to the doubtful argument that In addition to the doubtful argument that a system of production may replace another, comparing

Wikipedia with traditional encyclopedias may simply miss the point. As explained by Mattus (2009): it has to be seen as one entry, always evolving to access to the knowledge, but which any be combined with others (scientific references, traditional encyclopedias), and used as a tool amongst others, and not, as was the Encyclopédie, the deposit of the human knowledge. What Wikipedia shows is the extension of the knowledge and of the sources of knowledge, since the seventeenth century, and thus the never ending need to educate the users to have a critical, scientific reading of any source of knowledge.ntific reading of

any source of knowledge.
Data sourceScholarly articles +
Dates7 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22What%2Bwe%2Bknow%2Babout%2BWikipedia%3A%2Ba%2Breview%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bliterature%2Banalyzing%2Bthe%2Bproject%28s%29%22 +
Has authorNicolas Jullien +
Has domainInformation systems +
Has topicLiterature review +
MonthMay +
Peer reviewedNo +
Publication typeWorking paper +
Published inSSRN (Working Paper) +
Research designLiterature review +
Research questionsAs we want to study the findings of all these articles [that study Wikipedia], we need a more general framework of understanding of the functioning of these communities, before going deeper in their analysis.
Revid11,050 +
TheoriesCarillo and Okoli (2011)’s framework (figuCarillo and Okoli (2011)’s framework (figure 1, page 5) is rather extensive on the input and process part, but less complete on the output part, as they only focus on the declared quality of the articles by Wikipedia (”regular article with no nomination, featured article nominees that were not accepted, and featured articles”).

Crowston et al. (2006), followed by Lee et al. (2009), propose indicators to analyze the group production (they name ”system creation”), and complete this model, relying on DeLone and McLean (1992, 2002, 2003), with indicators to link the concrete outputs (here article, in their case, open source software) to the user’s satisfaction. ... Finally, Wikipedia is an example of a “knowledge commons” (Hess and Ostrom, 2006b). These authors proposed a framework to understand the production of such common, we present in figure 2, page 6.ch common, we present in figure

2, page 6.
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleWhat we know about Wikipedia: a review of the literature analyzing the project(s)
Unit of analysisScholarly article +
Urlhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2053597 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionN/A +
Wikipedia languageAll languages +
Wikipedia page typeN/A +
Year2012 +