DOCSLIB.ORG

Theoretical Approach to Legitimizing Collaboratively Constructed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Northern Colorado Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC Dissertations Student Research 12-1-2011 Theoretical approach to legitimizing collaboratively constructed knowledge: a content analysis of Wikipedia science articles based on accidental collaboration James Patrick Hutchinson Follow this and additional works at: https://digscholarship.unco.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Hutchinson, James Patrick, "Theoretical approach to legitimizing collaboratively constructed knowledge: a content analysis of Wikipedia science articles based on accidental collaboration" (2011). Dissertations. 169. https://digscholarship.unco.edu/dissertations/169 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO Greeley, Colorado The Graduate School A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO LEGITIMIZING COLLABORATIVELY CONSTRUCTED KNOWLEDGE: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WIKIPEDIA SCIENCE ARTICLES BASED ON ACCIDENTAL COLLABORATION A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy James Patrick Hutchinson College of Education and Behavioral Sciences Department of Educational Technology December 2011 ABSTRACT Hutchinson, James Patrick. A Theoretical Approach To Legitimizing Collaboratively Constructed Knowledge: A Content Analysis of Wikipedia Science Articles Based on Accidental Collaboration . Published Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 2011. This study involved an analysis of 147 Wikipedia science articles using content and social network analysis to explore authorial relationships between articles and test a theoretical approach to using accidental collaboration as a tool to legitimize collaboratively constructed knowledge. Contrary to Wikipedia’s tagline of “anyone can edit,” this study found that articles had a small number of prolific contributors and that these contributors had educational background and edit history suggesting they were knowledgeable about the topics to which they contributed. Results also showed that articles found via accidental collaboration tended to be scientific in nature and often had direct subject matter relationships to their corresponding seed article. Taken together, these results suggest that Wikipedia science articles are at least partially written by knowledgeable individuals. Implications include rethinking how Wikipedia is used by teachers and students; its potential as a tool for developing critical literacy and 21st century skills; and the need for continued research to further explore the issues of legitimacy and reliability of Wikipedia in various subject areas. Due to the limitations of this study, generalizations beyond the science articles studied cannot be made. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the help and assistance of a number of individuals. Most importantly, the support of my entire committee was invaluable and, in particular, my research advisor Dr. James Gall whose guidance, support, insightful comments and editorial feedback was crucial. Dr. Mia Williams’ discussions and suggestions regarding critical literacy added an additional demission to the study that helped extend its practical implications. The data collection and processing that was necessary for this study would not have been possible without the help of a few key individuals who volunteered their time to lend the technical expertise that I lacked. I appreciate the help of the toolserver.org user Betacommand who ran the SQL query which provided the raw Wikipedia data needed. Also, my former student and technological guru, Mr. Caleb Jares, facilitated the writing of the query request and wrote the C# program script that performed the key function of identifying accidental collaborators. Wikipedia itself would not exist if not for the efforts of millions of volunteer contributors around the world and the creative vision of Jimmy Wales. Their efforts make possible research such as this which will hopefully provide feedback that can help to further improve Wikipedia. We can only hope that it will continue to grow and improve and one day become a library of everything containing the sum of human knowledge. iv Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to my family for their continued support and patience over the years as I pursued my own educational dream. May they find the encouragement to pursue their own dreams and the determination to realize them. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................1 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .........................................................................14 History of the Encyclopedia Wikipedia Structure of Wikipedia Popularity of Wikipedia Research on Wikipedia Social Network Analysis Sociological Studies of the Internet Content Analysis Computer Networks as Social Networks Summary III. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................54 Purpose of the Study Research Questions Materials Definitions Research Design Content Analysis Procedure Sampling Rationale Recording/Coding Data Extraction MySQL Query Identification of Accidental Collaborators Analysis of Network Data Tables Analysis of Wikipedia Contributors Limitations vi IV. RESULTS .......................................................................................................89 Q1 What is the Profile of Contributions to Select Science Articles in Wikipedia? Q2 What is the Profile of a Prolific Contributor to Select Science Articles in Wikipedia? Q3 Do Prolific Contributors to Select Science Articles in Wikipedia Contribute to Multiple Articles? Q4 What Types of Articles Cluster Around Select Science Articles Based on Accidental Collaboration and What Conclusions can be Drawn? Q5 What do Network Maps of Article Clusters Based on Accidental Collaboration Say About the Legitimacy of the Content? V. DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................119 Major Findings Practical Implications K-12 and Higher Education Research Implications Contributors Accidental Collaboration Computer Networks as Social Networks Retention of Experts Summary Conclusion REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................144 APPENDIX A Complete List of 180 Originally Selected Science Articles ................156 APPENDIX B Transcript of the Original Toolserver.Org Query Request ..................161 APPENDIX C Data Compiled From User Pages For 43 Users Identified With an Apparent Science Background ...............................................166 APPENDIX D Complete Article Categorizations For The 12 Seed Articles Selected ................................................................................................171 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Example of an article network table (Cell Biology) showing examples of accidental collaboration ..........................................................................................83 2. Summary data for the random sub-sample of 15 articles ...........................................93 3. Summary statistics for editors ...................................................................................100 4. Summary statistics for editors after removing low edit count articles ......................103 5. Frequency of article edit counts for all 913 editors (truncated for easy reading). Edits of 6 or more accounted for a cumulative total percentage of 6.37% of articles ...................................................................................................................105 6. Categories identified for the 809 articles showing accidental collaboration ............109 7. Summary of article categories for those identified via the accidental collaboration process ................................................................................................110 8. Summary data for the 12 articles in the random sub-sample ....................................111 9. List of the top 50 articles contributed to by looking at all 913 editors both excluding five or fewer edits and including all edits ................................................113 10. Summary of articles showing percentage matching science, academic and non-academic categories ...........................................................................................117 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Graphical representation of accidental collaboration showing contributors to the Chemistry article also contributing to other articles .........................................11 2. Partial screenshot of Wikipedia main page showing the tag lines free encyclopedia and anyone can edit as well as the total number of articles in English on October 17, 2010 .........................................................................................................20 3. Screenshot of a Wikipedia page ..................................................................................22 4. Screenshot of a Wikipedia edit page for an article .....................................................23 5. Composite
Recommended publications
  • Using New Technologies for Library Instruction in Science and Engineering: Web 2.0 Applications

    Using New Technologies for Library Instruction in Science and Engineering: Web 2.0 Applications

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln October 2006 Using New Technologies for Library Instruction in Science and Engineering: Web 2.0 Applications Virginia A. Baldwin University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Baldwin, Virginia A., "Using New Technologies for Library Instruction in Science and Engineering: Web 2.0 Applications" (2006). Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries. 56. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience/56 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Using New Technologies for Library Instruction in Science and Engineering: Web 2.0 Applications “Quantum computation is... a distinctively new way of harnessing nature... It will be the first technology that allows useful tasks to be performed in collaboration between parallel universes.” … David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: the Science of Parallel Universes-- and its Implications http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Deutsch INTRODUCTION The transformational concept of Web 2.0 for libraries was a hot topic at three major conferences in June of 2006. The American Library Association (ALA), Special Libraries Association (SLA), and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) conferences all had sessions on the subject. Not all of the focus was on sci-tech libraries. An exploration of the use of these technologies for library instruction in science and engineering fields is the emphasis for this column.
  • Community and Communication

    Community and Communication

    Community and 12 Communication A large, diverse, and thriving group of volun- teers produces encyclopedia articles and administers Wikipedia. Over time, members of the Wikipedia community have developed conventions for interacting with each other, processes for managing content, and policies for minimizing disruptions and maximizing use- ful work. In this chapter, we’ll discuss where to find other contributors and how to ask for help with any topic. We’ll also explain ways in which community members interact with each other. Though most discussion occurs on talk pages, Wikipedia has some central community forums for debate about the site’s larger policies and more specific issues. We’ll also talk about the make-up of the community. First, however, we’ll outline aspects of Wikipedia’s shared culture, from key philosophies about how contributors How Wikipedia Works (C) 2008 by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates should interact with each other to some long-running points of debate to some friendly practices that have arisen over time. Although explicit site policies cover content guidelines and social norms, informal philosophies and practices help keep the Wikipedia community of contributors together. Wikipedia’s Culture Wikipedia’s community has grown spontaneously and organically—a recipe for a baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references. But core tenets of the wiki way, like Assume Good Faith and Please Don’t Bite the Newcomers, have been with the community since the beginning. Assumptions on Arrival Wikipedians try to treat new editors well. Assume Good Faith (AGF) is a funda- mental philosophy, as well as an official guideline (shortcut WP:AGF) on Wikipedia.
  • Wiki-Reliability: a Large Scale Dataset for Content Reliability on Wikipedia

    Wiki-Reliability: a Large Scale Dataset for Content Reliability on Wikipedia

    Wiki-Reliability: A Large Scale Dataset for Content Reliability on Wikipedia KayYen Wong∗ Miriam Redi Diego Saez-Trumper Outreachy Wikimedia Foundation Wikimedia Foundation Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia London, United Kingdom Barcelona, Spain [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Wikipedia is the largest online encyclopedia, used by algorithms and web users as a central hub of reliable information on the web. The quality and reliability of Wikipedia content is maintained by a community of volunteer editors. Machine learning and information retrieval algorithms could help scale up editors’ manual efforts around Wikipedia content reliability. However, there is a lack of large-scale data to support the development of such research. To fill this gap, in this paper, we propose Wiki-Reliability, the first dataset of English Wikipedia articles annotated with a wide set of content reliability issues. To build this dataset, we rely on Wikipedia “templates”. Tem- plates are tags used by expert Wikipedia editors to indicate con- Figure 1: Example of an English Wikipedia page with several tent issues, such as the presence of “non-neutral point of view” template messages describing reliability issues. or “contradictory articles”, and serve as a strong signal for detect- ing reliability issues in a revision. We select the 10 most popular 1 INTRODUCTION reliability-related templates on Wikipedia, and propose an effective method to label almost 1M samples of Wikipedia article revisions Wikipedia is one the largest and most widely used knowledge as positive or negative with respect to each template. Each posi- repositories in the world. People use Wikipedia for studying, fact tive/negative example in the dataset comes with the full article checking and a wide set of different information needs [11].
  • Analyzing and Visualizing the Semantic Coverage of Wikipedia and Its Authors

    Analyzing and Visualizing the Semantic Coverage of Wikipedia and Its Authors

    Holloway, Todd, Božicevic, Miran and Börner, Katy. (2007) Analyzing and Visualizing the Semantic Coverage of Wikipedia and Its Authors. Complexity, Special issue on Understanding Complex Systems. Vol. 12(3), pp. 30-40. Also available as cs.IR/0512085. Analyzing and Vis ualizing the S emantic C overage of Wikipedia and Its Authors Todd Holloway Indiana University Department of C omputer S cience 150 S . W oodlawn Ave. Lindley Hall 215 Bloomington, IN 47405, US A P hone: (812) 219-2815 E mail: tohollow@ cs.indiana.edu Miran Božievi Wikipedia Networks Team Multimedia Institute (http://www.mi2.hr) Preradovieva 18 HR-10000 Zagreb Croatia Email: [email protected] Katy Börner* Indiana University, SLIS 10th Street & Jordan Avenue Main Library 019 Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Phone: (812) 855-3256 Fax: -6166 E-mail: [email protected] WWW: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy * To whom all correspondence and proofs are to be addressed. Keywords Network analysis, link analysis, information visualization Number of text pages: 20 Number of figures: 6 Number of tables: 3 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................3 1.1 Wiki Technology and Wikipedia............................................................................................................................3 1.2 Accuracy, Bias and Persistence ...........................................................................................................................4
  • How Trust in Wikipedia Evolves: a Survey of Students Aged 11 to 25

    How Trust in Wikipedia Evolves: a Survey of Students Aged 11 to 25

    PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS, SWEDEN VOL. 23 NO. 1, MARCH, 2018 Contents | Author index | Subject index | Search | Home How trust in Wikipedia evolves: a survey of students aged 11 to 25 Josiane Mothe and Gilles Sahut. Introduction. Whether Wikipedia is to be considered a trusted source is frequently questioned in France. This paper reports the results of a survey examining the levels of trust shown by young people aged eleven to twenty- five. Method. We analyse the answers given by 841 young people, aged eleven to twenty-five, to a questionnaire. To our knowledge, this is the largest study ever published on the topic. It focuses on (1) the perception young people have of Wikipedia; (2) the influence teachers and peers have on the young person’s own opinions; and (3) the variation of trends according to the education level. Analysis. All the analysis is based on ANOVA (analysis of variance) to compare the various groups of participants. We detail the results by comparing the various groups of responders and discuss these results in relation to previous studies. Results. Trust in Wikipedia depends on the type of information seeking tasks and on the education level. There are contrasting social judgments of Wikipedia. Students build a representation of a teacher’s expectations on the nature of the sources that they can use and hence the documentary acceptability of Wikipedia. The average trust attributed to Wikipedia for academic tasks could be induced by the tension between the negative academic reputation of the encyclopedia and the mostly positive experience of its credibility.
  • The Culture of Wikipedia

    The Culture of Wikipedia

    Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia Good Faith Collaboration The Culture of Wikipedia Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. Foreword by Lawrence Lessig The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Web edition, Copyright © 2011 by Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. CC-NC-SA 3.0 Purchase at Amazon.com | Barnes and Noble | IndieBound | MIT Press Wikipedia's style of collaborative production has been lauded, lambasted, and satirized. Despite unease over its implications for the character (and quality) of knowledge, Wikipedia has brought us closer than ever to a realization of the centuries-old Author Bio & Research Blog pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia is a rich ethnographic portrayal of Wikipedia's historical roots, collaborative culture, and much debated legacy. Foreword Preface to the Web Edition Praise for Good Faith Collaboration Preface Extended Table of Contents "Reagle offers a compelling case that Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative culture that underpins it: brawling, self-reflexive, funny, serious, and full-tilt committed to the 1. Nazis and Norms project, even if it means setting aside personal differences. Reagle's position as a scholar and a member of the community 2. The Pursuit of the Universal makes him uniquely situated to describe this culture." —Cory Doctorow , Boing Boing Encyclopedia "Reagle provides ample data regarding the everyday practices and cultural norms of the community which collaborates to 3. Good Faith Collaboration produce Wikipedia. His rich research and nuanced appreciation of the complexities of cultural digital media research are 4. The Puzzle of Openness well presented.
  • Developing a Web 2.0-Based System with User-Authored Content for Community Use and Teacher Education

    Developing a Web 2.0-Based System with User-Authored Content for Community Use and Teacher Education

    Education Tech Research Dev DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9141-x RESEARCH Developing a Web 2.0-based system with user-authored content for community use and teacher education Lauren Cifuentes • Amy Sharp • Sanser Bulu • Mike Benz • Laura M. Stough Ó Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2009 Abstract We report on an investigation into the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of an informational and instructional Website in order to generate guide- lines for instructional designers of read/write Web environments. We describe the process of design and development research, the problem addressed, the theory-based solution, and the evaluation and testing of that solution. Based on our experience, we then identify sixteen guidelines for future designers and developers of read/write Web-based learning environments. The study demonstrates how read/write Web technologies can be used to address general problems that have intrinsic societal importance; examines implementation of a read/write technology in a real-life context, thereby testing distributed cognitions learning theory; informs the design of similar environments; and provides grounded theory for the design and development of read/write Web learning environments. Keywords Design and development research Á Read/write Web Á Web 2.0 Á Distributed cognitions Á Social constructivism The emergence of read/write Web (Web 2.0) technologies such as wikis, Weblogs, Real Simple Syndication, Webcasts, and interactive photo galleries, has empowered users to actively contribute to the content of the Internet. By 2003, 44% of adult Internet users had participated in the interactive capabilities of the Internet by posting in at least one read/ write Web environment (Lenhart et al.
  • Classifying Wikipedia Article Quality with Revision History Networks

    Classifying Wikipedia Article Quality with Revision History Networks

    Classifying Wikipedia Article Quality With Revision History Networks Narun Raman∗ Nathaniel Sauerberg∗ Carleton College Carleton College [email protected] [email protected] Jonah Fisher Sneha Narayan Carleton College Carleton College [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT long been interested in maintaining and investigating the quality We present a novel model for classifying the quality of Wikipedia of its content [4][6][12]. articles based on structural properties of a network representation Editors and WikiProjects typically rely on assessments of article of the article’s revision history. We create revision history networks quality to focus volunteer attention on improving lower quality (an adaptation of Keegan et. al’s article trajectory networks [7]), articles. This has led to multiple efforts to create classifiers that can where nodes correspond to individual editors of an article, and edges predict the quality of a given article [3][4][18]. These classifiers can join the authors of consecutive revisions. Using descriptive statistics assist in providing assessments of article quality at scale, and help generated from these networks, along with general properties like further our understanding of the features that distinguish high and the number of edits and article size, we predict which of six quality low quality Wikipedia articles. classes (Start, Stub, C-Class, B-Class, Good, Featured) articles belong While many Wikipedia article quality classifiers have focused to, attaining a classification accuracy of 49.35% on a stratified sample on assessing quality based on the content of the latest version of of articles. These results suggest that structures of collaboration an article [1, 4, 18], prior work has suggested that high quality arti- underlying the creation of articles, and not just the content of the cles are associated with more intense collaboration among editors article, should be considered for accurate quality classification.
  • Wikis in Libraries Matthew M

    Wikis in Libraries Matthew M

    Wikis in Libraries Matthew M. Bejune Wikis have recently been adopted to support a variety of a type of Web site that allows the visitors to add, collaborative activities within libraries. This article and remove, edit, and change some content, typically with­ out the need for registration. It also allows for linking its companion wiki, LibraryWikis (http://librarywikis. among any number of pages. This ease of interaction pbwiki.com/), seek to document the phenomenon of wikis and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for mass in libraries. This subject is considered within the frame- collaborative authoring. work of computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). Wikis have been around since the mid­1990s, though it The author identified thirty-three library wikis and is only recently that they have become ubiquitous. In 1995, Ward Cunningham launched the first wiki, WikiWikiWeb developed a classification schema with four categories: (1) (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki), which is still active today, to collaboration among libraries (45.7 percent); (2) collabo- facilitate the exchange of ideas among computer program­ ration among library staff (31.4 percent); (3) collabora- mers (Wikipedia 2007b). The launch of WikiWikiWeb was tion among library staff and patrons (14.3 percent); and a departure from the existing model of Web communica­ tion ,where there was a clear divide between authors and (4) collaboration among patrons (8.6 percent). Examples readers. WikiWikiWeb elevated the status of readers, if of library wikis are presented within the article, as is a they so chose, to that of content writers and editors. This discussion for why wikis are primarily utilized within model proved popular, and the wiki technology used on categories I and II and not within categories III and IV.
  • Initiativen Roger Cloes Infobrief

    Initiativen Roger Cloes Infobrief

    Wissenschaftliche Dienste Deutscher Bundestag Infobrief Entwicklung und Bedeutung der im Internet ehrenamtlich eingestell- ten Wissensangebote insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Wiki- Initiativen Roger Cloes WD 10 - 3010 - 074/11 Wissenschaftliche Dienste Infobrief Seite 2 WD 10 - 3010 - 074/11 Entwicklung und Bedeutung der ehrenamtlich im Internet eingestellten Wissensangebote insbe- sondere im Hinblick auf die Wiki-Initiativen Verfasser: Dr. Roger Cloes / Tim Moritz Hector (Praktikant) Aktenzeichen: WD 10 - 3010 - 074/11 Abschluss der Arbeit: 1. Juli 2011 Fachbereich: WD 10: Kultur, Medien und Sport Ausarbeitungen und andere Informationsangebote der Wissenschaftlichen Dienste geben nicht die Auffassung des Deutschen Bundestages, eines seiner Organe oder der Bundestagsverwaltung wieder. Vielmehr liegen sie in der fachlichen Verantwortung der Verfasserinnen und Verfasser sowie der Fachbereichsleitung. Der Deutsche Bundestag behält sich die Rechte der Veröffentlichung und Verbreitung vor. Beides bedarf der Zustimmung der Leitung der Abteilung W, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin. Wissenschaftliche Dienste Infobrief Seite 3 WD 10 - 3010 - 074/11 Zusammenfassung Ehrenamtlich ins Internet eingestelltes Wissen spielt in Zeiten des sogenannten „Mitmachweb“ eine zunehmend herausgehobene Rolle. Vor allem Wikis und insbesondere Wikipedia sind ein nicht mehr wegzudenkendes Element des Internets. Keine anderen vergleichbaren Wissensange- bote im Internet, auch wenn sie zum freien Abruf eingestellt sind und mit Steuern, Gebühren, Werbeeinnahmen finanziert oder als Gratisproben im Rahmen von Geschäftsmodellen verschenkt werden, erreichen die Zugriffszahlen von Wikipedia. Das ist ein Phänomen, das in seiner Dimension vor dem Hintergrund der urheberrechtlichen Dis- kussion und der Begründung von staatlichem Schutz als Voraussetzung für die Schaffung von geistigen Gütern kaum Beachtung findet. Relativ niedrige Verbreitungskosten im Internet und geringe oder keine Erfordernisse an Kapitalinvestitionen begünstigen diese Entwicklung.
  • Wikipedia Citations: a Comprehensive Data Set of Citations with Identifiers Extracted from English Wikipedia

    Wikipedia Citations: a Comprehensive Data Set of Citations with Identifiers Extracted from English Wikipedia

    RESEARCH ARTICLE Wikipedia citations: A comprehensive data set of citations with identifiers extracted from English Wikipedia Harshdeep Singh1 , Robert West1 , and Giovanni Colavizza2 an open access journal 1Data Science Laboratory, EPFL 2Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam Keywords: citations, data, data set, Wikipedia Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/qss/article-pdf/2/1/1/1906624/qss_a_00105.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 Citation: Singh, H., West, R., & ABSTRACT Colavizza, G. (2020). Wikipedia citations: A comprehensive data set Wikipedia’s content is based on reliable and published sources. To this date, relatively little of citations with identifiers extracted from English Wikipedia. Quantitative is known about what sources Wikipedia relies on, in part because extracting citations Science Studies, 2(1), 1–19. https:// and identifying cited sources is challenging. To close this gap, we release Wikipedia doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00105 Citations, a comprehensive data set of citations extracted from Wikipedia. We extracted DOI: 29.3 million citations from 6.1 million English Wikipedia articles as of May 2020, and https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00105 classified as being books, journal articles, or Web content. We were thus able to extract Received: 14 July 2020 4.0 million citations to scholarly publications with known identifiers—including DOI, PMC, Accepted: 23 November 2020 PMID, and ISBN—and further equip an extra 261 thousand citations with DOIs from Crossref. Corresponding Author: As a result, we find that 6.7% of Wikipedia articles cite at least one journal article with Giovanni Colavizza [email protected] an associated DOI, and that Wikipedia cites just 2% of all articles with a DOI currently indexed in the Web of Science.
  • The History of Mediawiki and the Prospective for the Future

    The History of Mediawiki and the Prospective for the Future

    The history of MediaWiki and the prospective for the future Bern, 2017-02-04 Magnus Manske https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki_talk,_Bern,_2017-02-04,_Magnus_Manske.pdf Overview ● History of MediaWiki, with a focus on Wikimedia ● Usage, extensions and scripts ● Wikidata ● Of course, a few tools Pre-history UseModWiki by Ward Cunningham ● Single file Perl script ● All data stored in file system ● Does not scale well ● No “special pages” beyond Recent Changes ● Default: delete revisions older than two weeks, to save disk space… ● Used for Wikipedia since 2001-01 Phase 2 ● Mea maxima culpa ● Switch on 2002-01-25 ● PHP (for better or worse) ● Using MySQL to store data ● Based on UseModWiki syntax for backwards compatibility Brion Vibber Photo by JayWalsh CC-BY-SA 3.0 Tim Starling Photo by Lane Hartwell Nostalgia Wikipedia screenshot CC-BY-SA 3.0 Phase 3 / MediaWiki ● Massive refactoring/rewrite by Lee Daniel Crocker ● Proper OO, profiling functions ● Known as “Phase 3”, subsequently renamed “MediaWiki” (July 2003) Lee Daniel Crocker Picture by User:Cowtung, CC-BY-SA 3.0 New features since UseModWiki (for Wikipedia) ● Namespaces ● Special Pages with advanced functionality ● Skins ● Local (later: Commons) file upload ● Categories ● Templates ● Parser functions ● Table syntax ● Media viewer ● Visual editor ● Kartograph MediaWiki today ● Most widely used Wiki software ● Over 2,200 extensions ● Customizable via JavaScript gadgets and user scripts ● Comprehensive API Multiple caching mechanisms for large installations (e.g. Wikipedia)