MA Thesis
Digital Communication and Interactive Storytelling in
Wikipedia A Study of Greek Users’ Interaction and Experience
Author: George Mavridis Supervisor: Sara Ellis Nilsson
Examiner: Ludvig Papmehl-Dufay Term: VT21 Subject: Digital Humanities
Level: Master of Arts
Course code: 4DH40E
Abstract Wikipedia consists of an online encyclopedia created by users worldwide who collaborate to distribute knowledge and edit information in real-time. Although Wikipedia's accuracy has been a disputable and debatable issue in many recent studies, little academic research has systematically addressed how users interact with the platform's storytelling tools and how do they perceive and use Wikipedia's infrastructure, such as interactive tools. This exploratory study fulfills this gap and sheds light on users' perceptions about Wikipedia's interactivity. Moreover, Wikipedia is approached as an online community where collaboration, co-creation, and knowledge distribution play an important role. Therefore, it can be studied under the scope of Digital Humanities as well. The theoretical framework of interactive storytelling and digital communication suggests that hyperlinks, page preview bottoms, or interactive catalogs are applied in Wikipedia's environment to help users absorb information and construct their narratives. The findings of this thesis offer practical insights on how Wikipedia's interactive storytelling tools empower users with the ability to develop their stories and become editors/authors and provide a foundation for further academic research on user experience and how to improve interactivity and digital communication in Wikipedia.
Key words Wikipedia, interactive storytelling, digital communication, digital humanities, online communities, user experience, hyperlinks, interactive tools
Acknowledgments I want to thank Linnaeus University and the Digital Humanities Initiative for providing me with the opportunity to study this prominent and exciting field of studies, my tutors for helping me during this year to broaden my horizons and obtain new knowledge and skills, and my supervisor, Sara Ellis Nilsson, for guiding me on how to organize my thesis research.
Table of contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Background 3 2.1 Wikipedia as an online community 3 2.2 Interactive Storytelling in Wikipedia 4 2.3 Digital Communication and Wikipedia 5 3 Previous Research 6 4 Theoretical basis 7 4.1 Storytelling and new technologies 8 4.2 Interactive technologies 8 4.3 Social Constructionism 10 5 Methodology 10 5.1 Purpose and aims 11 5.2 Method 11 5.2.1 Sample 11 5.2.2 Data Collection Method 12 5.2.3 Data analysis method 13 5.3 Ethics and Limitations 14 6 Results – Analysis 16 6.1 Research Population 16 6.2 Research Findings 17 6.3 Analysis of results 20 6.3.1 Users and interactive technologies 20 6.3.2 Users and storytelling 22 6.3.3 Users and social constructionism 24 7 Discussion – Conclusion 25 7.1 Discussion 25 7.2 Conclusion 26 8 References 28
Appendices Questionnaire: translated and original version
1 Introduction
Since its creation, on 15/01/2001, Wikipedia has been developed into a trendy reference website, attracting 1.7 billion unique visitors monthly as of November 2020. It currently has over 56 million articles in over 300 languages, including 6,283,820 articles in English, with 142,081 active contributors (Wikipedia, 2021). Apart from these significantly vital statistics about Wikipedia's operation, what is interesting about this platform is its connection to Digital Humanities (DH) and the concepts of co-creation, collaboration, open access, and development of digital archives of knowledge. Burdich et al. (2012) pointed out that Digital Humanities involve collaborative, transdisciplinary, and computationally engaged research, teaching, and publishing in innovative ways. They also underlined that DH develops new digital platforms for knowledge production and distribution. Examining Wikipedia under this perspective, we can detect these types of knowledge distribution and the collaboration between the members of this online community. They play an active role in information creation and distribution. The reliability of the information presented through this online community may be questionable and not comparable to other similar DH projects, in which only researchers take part. Still, the core of Wikipedia seems to be supported on basic principles of DH. This exploratory study investigates how users of Wikipedia perceive and use interactive storytelling and digital communication, which are constructed and developed within this platform. Also, to obtain a broad image of the ways users understand Wikipedia's interactive storytelling, which tools they find most interesting and easy to use, and what additions they think could improve the browsing experience, online research was conducted. To make this research workable, I have focused on a specific group: the Greek users because of time and resource limitations. Apart from time limitations, this thesis is limited to this particular focus group of users. The questionnaires constructed for this study were shared online on platforms in which only users from Greece take part and use Wikipedia. Therefore, the data presented below constitute part of the analysis and discussion that follows concern answers received from Greek users. The main Research Question (RQ) of this study is "How do Greek users interact with Wikipedia storytelling?" A few sub-research questions support the main one and obtain an even broader picture: a) What type of interactive storytelling tools do the Greek users prefer when accessing Wikipedia articles, b) how they evaluate these tools, and c) what enhancements users suggest improving Wikipedia storytelling. Wikipedia is a popular online community where users can both access and provide information and data. Konieczny (2011) declared that Wikipedia is much more than an encyclopedia or an online portal and described it as one of the largest online communities facilitated by new information and communication technologies. Wikipedia connects volunteers, teachers, librarians, scholars, and activists (Reagle and Koerner, 2020), and consequently, collaboration and co-creation are two key concepts that characterize the overall operation of the platform. Jemielniak (2020)
1
stated that the collaboration exhibited by Wikipedia is engaging in online communities. Wikipedia comprises an online community devoted to collaboration and knowledge creation and distribution, where users' participation and contribution play a significant role in an open-access context. Developed with wiki technology, this specific online community applies various interactive storytelling approaches (data visualization, hyperlinking, images, etc.) to create a networked data poll, where the knowledge and information are connected. How users interact with Wikipedia storytelling is of research interest. It can provide insights into how this online community could be improved or what kind of interactive technologies make it easier for readers to access the platform. Improving Wikipedia's interface is likely to improve both the reading experience and broader access to the forum, knowledge, and information. New technologies, such as interactive tools can empower users and help them better absorb information and data. Even though there are many examples of research on Wikipedia, the most significant interest seems to have been given to the degree of its reliability and to how knowledge is structured and disseminated. Therefore, the present research aims to shed light on a new perspective around this popular platform. Since Wikipedia is associated with the field of Digital Humanities, I have notably chosen to study this platform as an online community and examine the interactive storytelling tools that apply to its non-fictional narratives. As a researcher, I found particular interest in exploring this online community because of its popularity and because it is a platform on which many users search for information and base their knowledge on it. Besides the reliability of the information disseminated through this community, the digital tools used and how the non-fiction narrative of the articles in this online and open-access encyclopedia can offer us handy tools for studying how interactive storytelling can apply to related projects. Examining how users of such a popular and large platform evaluate the interactive interface in its non-fiction narrative can also enrich our knowledge and understanding of the extent to which interactive tools fulfill their purpose: to help users better absorb knowledge and information. This paper displays first the broad background of this exploratory study by presenting the theoretical and research context, and then previous research conducted about Wikipedia. Afterward, in the theoretical basis sections, the theories of interactive storytelling, digital communication, social constructionism, and social sciences approaches are presented in detail to help readers get a more solid and accurate picture of the theoretical context of this investigation. In the methodology section that follows, arguments on the choice of the appropriate and more suitable research method for this investigation are declared, emphasizing both the advantages and drawbacks of the selected approach. The data presented in this exploratory study was collected with an online survey. In this specific chapter, there are details about how the survey was conducted, the data analysis method used to analyze the results, and the ethical consideration and limitations of this approach. The analysis section that follows contains the application of the theoretical framework of this study under the results of the online survey conducted. The last section, discussion, is used to present the critical perspectives, reflect upon the results of this study, and discuss future potential implementations for improvements and similar future studies.
2
2 Background This chapter presents the background of this thesis. To place the present study into a broader research context, it is crucial to describe further all the significant aspects of the problem, which is addressed, as well as to include and explain the central concepts of interactive storytelling and digital communication, and their connection to Wikipedia.
2.1 Wikipedia as an online community Wikipedia consists of a digitally collaboratively edited source of comprehensive knowledge. This study approaches Wikipedia under the scope of an online community directly connected to Digital Humanities studies. Völkel et al. (2006) described how concepts in Wikipedia’s articles are interrelated and how users obtain a more active role by contributing to content creation and the development of semantic knowledge within Wikipedia. From their point of view, Denning et al. (2005) emphasized collaborative and social computing systems and tools in the Wikipedia environment by underlining the fact that users configure their narrative, following different ways of reading articles while they can use the tools of the platform and contribute to knowledge and information. Thus, Wikipedia can also be studied as a platform where the narrative is not per-given. At the same time, the users might also become the knowledge creators, and there is an open-ended dialog that prompts digital communication in which the receivers of the messages can also take on the role of the transmitter. Collaborative, transdisciplinary, and computationally engaged research, teaching, and publishing are involved in the Digital Humanities field, where collaboration and co-creation play a significant role (Lunenfeld et al., 2012). As pointed out by Hansson and Svensson (2020), one hallmark of Digital Humanities is its cross- disciplinary character since DH is an area of scholarly activity that combines various research fields and presupposes the involvement and collaboration of scholars from different disciplines. The terms collaboration, co-creation, co-design, and co-thinking are at the core of DH and can also be detected in Wikipedia’s operation. Wikipedia is an online community where knowledge results from collaborative work while the participants in this community systematically use digital resources to create, publish and distribute information online. Berry and Fagerjord (2017) emphasized that Digital Humanities incorporates both digitized and born-digital materials and resources. It consists of a field that combines social sciences, digital publishing, and tools provided by computing hypertexts, data visualization, hypermedia. Such computing tools abound in the Wikipedia environment and can be used in a variety of ways. For example, both to create new articles and to read or distribute them. It is therefore interesting to investigate how users in Wikipedia apply these computing tools to navigate through the platform, to access and absorb knowledge, to develop their content, and any other way in which users interact with such digital tools within the community, as such research is likely to conclude how an online community like Wikipedia works and how the role and relationships of its members are influenced by the digital tools available.
3
2.2 Interactive Storytelling in Wikipedia Bostan and Marsh (2012) described interactive storytelling as a process where the readers construct their own stories by following per-given narrative paths and interactive tools. Based on this notion, every time someone accesses Wikipedia to find information, they end up with a unique narrative and story using the platform's interactive interface. This unique narrative experience – where you can follow different narrative paths, moving from one article to another with the use of hyperlinks – is influenced both by the capabilities and interest of the users and the tools offered by Wikipedia. Therefore, collecting feedback on users' experiences when browsing Wikipedia is of research interest, and the findings of such research could improve the platform interfaces. Furthermore, users' responses could improve the Wikipedia design to create an interface that provides meaningful and relevant experience to users and improve the platform's usability, for instance, by moving into a more user-centered design (Diller et al., 2005). Describing the fundamentals of interactive storytelling, Bostan and Marsh (2012) pointed out that interactive storytelling falls under the umbrella term of Human- Computer Interaction at the interchange of humanities and hard science. This notion is supported by the argument that interactive storytelling encompasses various fields, such as sociology, linguistics, computer science, user interface design. Although precise definitions of hard science vary (Smith et al., 2000), approximately the natural sciences, such as biology, astronomy, and physics, consist of hard sciences, while others, such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology (social sciences), are soft sciences. For this thesis, interactive storytelling is approached as a bridge between computer science and user interface design and the theories of digital communication. This is a process where the readers obtain a more active role and acquire the ability to construct their narratives and develop unique reading paths. Consequently, they use interactive storytelling tools, such as hyperlinks, bottoms, virtual reality applications, multimedia, or any other digital interactive element, to formulate unique pieces of knowledge during the reading process. To make it more straightforward, when it comes to Wikipedia, on every article, there are hyperlinks that consist of a word or set of words or even a whole sentence linked to other articles or pieces of information. When Wikipedia's users read an article, they have the option to click on a word or a set of words like these and continue by reading a whole new piece of information. Therefore, the users end up following a unique reading path based on the hyperlinks they have chosen to follow. Interactive tools like these empower users with a more active role, and instead of being message receivers, they can also participate in digital communication. Interactive storytelling as a communication process introduces a new field of theory where sender and receiver roles become interchangeable (Bostan, 2012). In this approach, storytelling shows a method of active participation and cognition rather than passive reception. Readers can use interactive storytelling tools to absorb knowledge and construct their narratives. Instead of being only the receivers, they have the option and the infrastructures to interact with pieces of information and develop their messages and actively participate in the process of knowledge
4
construction. Within this digital communication, it is crucial to deeper study the interaction between users and computer systems and the extent to which the communication itself is achieved and fulfills its purpose. As underlined by Bruni and Baceviciute (2013), it is also essential to investigate the success of digital communication between a user and a system since this determines the degree to which the goals of that system have been accomplished. Collecting feedback from users about their experience navigating Wikipedia could lay the groundwork for a study that goes deeper into whether Wikipedia serves its purpose and how successful is the application of interactive technologies used in this specific online environment. Explaining deeper the connection between interactive storytelling and Human- Computer Interaction (HCI) studies, there is also a need to define HCI. Dourish (2001) highlighted that HCI mainly focuses on the interfaces between users and computers. It is a field of studies on how users interact with design technologies and computer interfaces. HCI also prompts users to interact with computers in novel ways. However, recently several trends have emerged, provoking a lot of studies and research. Potentially there are several ways to understand HCI studies and use them as a theoretical basis for research like this one. For this thesis, HCI is applied to describe the open-ended dialog between users and computers, which can emerge with unlimited technological resources, such as those used in the Wikipedia online environment. Wikipedia's interactive storytelling tools help users develop an open- ended dialog within the platform's interface and interact with its content in novel ways. The interaction between users and Wikipedia's interactive design and technologies leads to digital communication, as described in HCI theories, which potentially unlimited technological resources could further support.
2.3 Digital Communication and Wikipedia As described by Madhow (2008), digital communication is transferring information in digital form, most commonly as binary digits or bits. It is the formal communication that takes place within a digital environment using digital tools and media. Deepening their thinking a little further, Lee and Messerschmitt (2012) stated that digital communication has sufficiently overwhelming advantages, creating an online environment where multimedia communication is allowed through digital tools (transmission of photos, audio, video as communication messages). Among these new digital communication tools are interactive technologies, which, however, establish two-way communication. As noted above, the roles of transmitter and receiver are constantly changing. The users can provide feedback and obtain a more active role in digital communication since they can become transmitters and produce their messages. Such digital communication is achieved within Wikipedia. The process of digital communication between Wikipedia users and the "messages" (articles, information, or data) and the platform itself is two-way. The platform offers digital communication tools, such as hyperlinks, photos, graphics, and the digital version of information, text, and data. Users can also participate as "creators" or as "message transmitters," creating their articles or adding information to published ones. Users, besides receiving information, can take on the role of creator and contribute. While
5
using interactive technologies, they can follow their reading paths and end up with a different message - information - knowledge each time.
3 Previous Research In this chapter, previous research related to Wikipedia is presented. Given that most research focuses on the reliability of the information presented on Wikipedia, this research is valuable as it examines the platform as an online community and studies the digital communication that develops within it, emphasizing interactive technologies. Given that there is little research on interactive communication within Wikipedia, this thesis comes to fill the gap and offer valuable insights on how users interact with interactive technologies, the digital tools they use, and how a platform like Wikipedia can be improved, offering an even better experience of reading and knowledge consumption. Wikipedia, due to its popularity, has attracted relatively significant scholarly attention. De la Calzada and Dekhtyar (2010) examined models of measuring the information quality of Wikipedia articles. They approached the platform by distinguishing two main categories of Wikipedia articles: the ones that are "stabilized" (whose content has not undergone significant changes for a considerable period) and the others which are "controversial" (articles which undergone vandalism, revert wars, or whose content is subject to internal discussions between Wikipedia editors). This approach confirms the intense "duplication" that prevails regarding the accuracy of the information hosted on the platform and how much it has preoccupied researchers. Interestingly, the research concludes that there are "conflicts" between content creators in Wikipedia regarding the accuracy of the data presented in some articles. Given that Wikipedia has articles with "scientific" information, such as about diseases, historical facts, wars, political movements, revolutions, many researchers delve into each article category and accuracy of the information presented on Wikipedia. In addition, as pointed out by Lavsa et al. (2011), their research shown that Wikipedia does not provide consistently accurate, complete, and referenced medication information, and therefore, they suggest users (and in their case of study, students) consult more credible drug information resources for medication information rather than Wikipedia's articles. There is a growing body of studies on interactive technologies and storytelling, especially for platforms applied for digital communication, like Wikipedia. In a recent survey, Narayan et al. (2017) examined how interactive technologies, such as gamification tools, can help new Wikipedia users better participate in the peer production community and increase their contribution. However, the emphasis has been given only to gamification tools. It, therefore, differs from the present study, which examines interactive storytelling tools in a more general approach and is not limited only to gamification. To go further, Narayan et al.'s research, the use, and exploitation of interactive technologies, would also be interesting to explore in the light of user browsing. In addition, to examine the extent to which users who visit
6
the platform to get information are satisfied with the interactive storytelling tools of Wikipedia and offer feedback on improvements – changes. Arazy et al. (2011) explored the collaborative process in Wikipedia, group members' orientation, and the quality of articles created by these groups. As they pointed out, Wikipedia differs from many online communities, and it can be described as a production environment where groups work toward a well-defined output. Bearing in mind this highly collaborative and co-creative aspect of Wikipedia, there is a significant interest to investigate novel ways of expanding co-creation and collaborative design in this digital community, such as that discussed in this thesis, to improve Wikipedia infrastructure and enrich its interactive storytelling approach. Digital libraries, also known as online libraries or digital repositories or collections, enable users to access large amounts of data and information. Witten et al. (2009) underlined that these online databases could include texts, images, audio, video, digital documents, or any other digital media formats accessible using the internet. Moreover, Di Sciascio et al. (2017) stated that Wikipedia resembles a digital database that follows these rules, and they noted that user-generated content is undoubtedly one key to Wikipedia's success. But, as they pointed out, the quality assessment of information encountered on Wikipedia remains an elusive open issue. Their study sheds light on the fact that great efforts have been invested in algorithmic methods for automatic classification of Wikipedia and quality flaw detection. Still, they also clarify the need to support this process using interactive tools that combine automated methods and human intelligence. Therefore, they showed that interactive technologies could help an online database, such as Wikipedia, improve its reliability. Consequently, interactive tools and technologies can find various applications in how to change, improve or influence an online platform, such as Wikipedia. West et al. (2015) examined the role hyperlinks play on Wikipedia. As their study suggested, Wikipedia's article can often only be understood in the context of related articles, and hyperlinks make it easy to explore this context. Moreover, they emphasized that the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia hyperlinks is to aid navigation. To put this notion into a broad image, it could be interesting to examine the navigation purpose of hyperlinks and the extent to which they expand interactivity. Since hyperlinks consist of interactive tools, they can help readers easily navigate and, in Wikipedia's case, move from one article to another, but they also affect the digital communication process. Users can potentially obtain a more active role in narrative construction by using hyperlinks, and it could be interesting to expand West et al. study and investigate the new perspectives hyperlinks can address in the digital communication process.
4 Theoretical basis In this chapter, the theories of social constructionism, interactive storytelling, and digital communication are presented in detail to provide the overall theoretical framework of this study and support the results and the analysis which follows.
7
4.1 Storytelling and new technologies New media and technologies have rapidly changed the concept of storytelling by providing new tools and opportunities. New technologies and forms of media have created innovative ways for people to express and consume stories (Drischel et al., 2018) and developed a new broader perspective for the term of storytelling. Apart from its traditional forms (fairy tales, stories, mythology), modern storytelling has been extended to representing history, culture, politics, and social norms. Storytelling is used to address various cultural and social objectives within a society and can be described as the process of sharing stories, meanings, or narratives. Wikipedia consists of a characteristic example of an online community based on the dissemination of narratives, stories, and information, and consequently, storytelling is one of its key elements. People participating in Wikipedia as editors use this platform to perform social and cultural activities of sharing stories or narratives. Therefore, they can also be described as “storytellers.” However, Paulus et al. declared (2007) new media could provide a fertile environment for individuals to reshape stories and create what is framed as “group stories.” To achieve this, it is crucial to apply tools for asynchronous group communication, which is a process that can also be detected within Wikipedia. Under this perspective, it is worth studying how users participating in this group communication in Wikipedia apply new and innovative tools to create group storytelling. New media and technologies enriched the storytelling process with new tools that also transformed the role of readers. Recent progress in digital communication has developed a novel approach to narrative generation. Tools such as gamification, hyperlinking, virtual reality, artificial intelligence have created an interactive web interface where innovative storytelling narrative techniques are applied to communicate information (Porteous et al., 2010). In addition to this novel approach of sharing stories, readers have also been empowered with the ability to obtain a more active role in the narrative process and even – at least partially – construct their narrative path and storytelling. Wikipedia consists of an online community where this new approach of storytelling is applied. New tools, such as hyperlinking, or new narrative techniques, such as non-linear reading, are used in Wikipedia storytelling by providing the opportunity for the users to experience an interactive process of reading stories. Consequently, it is interesting to investigate these new and innovative techniques used in Wikipedia and to research user’s connections to them and their overall experience about this new modern storytelling process in the platform.
4.2 Interactive technologies Interactive technologies consist of recent technological advances. Dix (2004) pointed out that the overall notion behind interactive technologies is that they focus on the interfaces between users and computers and how humans interact with technological applications. Moreover, as he stated, by implementing an interactive design or an interactive way of thinking into an application, a website, or an online platform, humans can interact with computers in significantly novel ways. Crawford (2002), on the other hand, emphasized that there is a collaboration process between humans and computers – technology, with the use of interactive technologies, which
8
leads to meaningful and innovative communication. In short, interactive technologies provide a fertile ground for developing creative communication between humans, who are usually the recipients of messages, and computers, which can also be described as transmitters in a communication scenario, in the sense that humans can use interactive technologies both to absorb new knowledge and to create their own. Consequently, interactive technologies can benefit digital communication by empowering users with new capabilities and providing them with digital tools that enrich their online experience. Among other features, this is an approach that we strongly distinguish in Digital Humanities, which applies the systematic use of digital capabilities in the humanities and involves collaborative and multidisciplinary research, publishing, and learning (Lunenfeld et al., 2012). Interactive technologies can therefore enhance Digital Humanities projects with new resources and perspectives. Dykstra-Erickson (2002) stated that interactive design is about creating user experiences that extend the way people work, communicate, and interact. As stated above, in the present research, Wikipedia is approached as an online community, a typical example of a Digital Humanities project. Bearing in mind that Digital Humanities is a field constantly changing and growing (Weddell, 2013), interactive technologies could provide unlimited future potentials to similar projects, and there is always room for improvement. Since interactive technologies can help users play a more active role in reading and absorbing new knowledge and enhancing their ability to understand the information more enjoyably and innovatively, the question is whether the users apply these digital tools and under which circumstances. Wikipedia's users can utilize tools such as hyperlinks, interactive content directories, or page previews tools. Hyperlinks play an essential role in Wikipedia articles, and more broadly, in the platform interfaces, as we find them almost everywhere. Therefore, it is interesting to look for information on how users interact with them, as with other interactive tools, and to what extent they use them. Conklin (1987) characterized hyperlinks as the essence of the World Wide Web (WWW). He stated that hyperlinks provide rapid access to segment information chunks in non-sequential order, mimicking the non-linear associative process used by an individual looking for information. This is an approach that is still found today in Wikipedia articles and how hyperlinks are applied, and how the Internet functions. Users can use a hyperlink to move from one article to another and rapidly access information and data in a non-linear process. At the same time, they end up creating their narrative path. Baggio and Corigliano (2009) provided more arguments for the stated importance of the presence of hyperlinks on website pages by further deepening their analysis and emphasizing that hyperlinks have gained an economic value, becoming what may be called the currency of the Web. Although in the case of Wikipedia, such "financial benefits" are not found (as hyperlinks are not used for promotions but the dissemination of knowledge), that hyperlinks have gained even greater value makes them particularly important.
9
4.3 Social Constructionism This exploratory study approaches the research problem of the interaction between users and Wikipedia’s storytelling, under the scope of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) theories. There are various ways in approaching SSH theories, but for this paper, Social Sciences and Humanities are used as a branch of sciences devoted to studying human activities about social and cultural circumstances (Habert and Huc, 2010). SSH is an interdisciplinary field of studies, including an array of academic disciplines, such as communication studies, which are the central core of this thesis. The theory of social constructionism is used as a theoretical framework for this study. Cunliffe (2008) underlined that we create our sense of, and meanings about, our social surroundings and ourselves in our conversations and interactions with those around us and defined this process under the scope of social constructionism. In Social Sciences, social constructionism consists of a theory of knowledge that investigates the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world based on shared assumptions about reality. The notion behind this theory is that meanings are made in coordination with others (Fairhurst and Grant, 2010). This approach is applied as a theoretical perspective in which the findings of the present study are examined. Under his view, Leeds-Hurwitz (2009) described social constructionism as a process where the meaning is developed in coordination and collaboration with others, rather than separately from each individual. Wikipedia’s interface empowers users to interact, both with other individuals and the platform itself, to construct knowledge. Under the scope of social constructionism, the members of this online community collaborate to build an understanding of the world, both creating content and sharing their knowledge and interacting with the platform and creating their knowledge paths. As Andrews (2012) very aptly pointed out, the citizens who decide what they will give meaning and emphasis as a society determine social constructionism, which is constantly changing. The theory of social constructionism is applied to understand better how users of Wikipedia interact with platforms interface and the tools they use to construct knowledge and share meaning within this online community. Moreover, Durrheim (1997) claimed that people in societies build concepts, ideas, or knowledge that may not exist without the existence of people to validate these concepts. This perspective articulates that people coordinate to develop beliefs and learning by sharing their ideas, data, or information. Still, at the same time, they play a significantly important role also to validate the accuracy of these concepts and their meaning for the societies. Accordingly, social constructionism can help research, such as this thesis, to investigate further the meanings users create when they collaborate on a platform like Wikipedia, the tools they apply to construct knowledge, and the processes they follow to validate new ideas and concepts.
5 Methodology This chapter presents an analysis of the methodology followed for this study. The following is information about the method chosen, how the research is conducted,
10
and the process of collecting and analyzing data. There is also an extensive reference to the limitations of this thesis and the research plan that was followed. More specifically, to collect as much and more research-related data as possible, an online survey was conducted while with the data mining method, this data was processed and analyzed accordingly.
5.1 Purpose and aims This exploratory study aims at investigating how users interact with Wikipedia's interface and interactive storytelling. This paper's main Research Question (RQ) is the following: "How do Greek users interact with Wikipedia storytelling?". To support this RQ and to obtain a better perspective of the overall users' experiences in interactive storytelling of Wikipedia, three sub-research questions are also applied. These are a) What type of interactive storytelling tools do the Greek users prefer when accessing Wikipedia articles, b) how do they evaluate these tools, and c) which interactive tools users suggest improving Wikipedia storytelling. These sub-research questions were applied as a guideline for the online survey conducted to collect users' feedback, and they were used as the backbone for creating a questionnaire, which users were asked to answer. Because the main RQ is broad, it is crucial to support it with few sub-research questions that will help this investigation and expand our perspectives about Wikipedia users' experiences. The first sub-research question responds to the type of interactive tools that the users prefer. This will approximately help us understand the type of digital interactive communication users prefers in Wikipedia's environment. In accordance, by asking users to evaluate these tools, we can collect data about tool usability and the extent to which they are user-friendly while at the same time users can provide new perspectives by making their suggestions for improvements, which could be used for further study.
5.2 Method
5.2.1 Sample Members of two online communities were used as the focus group for this research. The first community is the "WooCommerce Greek Community." This is a Facebook group aimed at Wikipedia users. Its purpose is to encourage users to take a more active role in Wikipedia and develop online dialogues about the user experience while navigating the popular platform. Given that this research examines in-depth the way users interact with Wikipedia, this community was selected for both relevance, its members have direct contact with Wikipedia, and research interests, since its users, because of their experience with Wikipedia, have a more complete and accurate understanding of the subject of research. It is a private community because its administrators must approve every new member who participates in it. At the same time, all posts made within the community are also controlled by the administrators. In the context of the present survey, the administrators were initially approached and approved the study and the relevant questionnaire, which was subsequently distributed to their members. The second online community used for the research part of this study was the "WordPress Greek Community." This is another group on Facebook whose
11
members deal mainly with the web interface, the development of web platforms, and the improvement of the user navigation experience. This is a public group, in the sense that every Facebook user can watch and participate in the group discussions or make their posts. I also actively participate in this community, and Wikipedia is a platform that occasionally engages group members. In fact, given the experience of the users who take part in this community, around concepts such as interactive storytelling, user experience, and interactive technologies, this community was considered particularly useful for the present research. Community members can evaluate the Wikipedia interface and offer feedback, possible improvement tips, and their knowledge and experience around the concepts discussed in this research. Also, only those users who are involved with Wikipedia were asked to participate in the survey, to be as accurate as possible and specifically to the results of the survey.
5.2.2 Data Collection Method For this investigative study, data was collected with an online survey conducted using a questionnaire. This questionnaire was distributed and completed by the users online. McLafferty (2003) pointed out that survey research consists of a representative method to collect data about complex behaviors and social interactions. In a sense, it can also be considered as a tool for gathering information about people's lives that is not available from published resources. Based on this notion, an online survey was applied to obtain information about Wikipedia's users and address a wide range of communication issues related to interactive technologies and digital communication. The online research was used to collect users' responses, understand their behavior when interacting with the Wikipedia environment and come up with conclusions concerning the overall communication and knowledge consumption within this online community. Initially, a short questionnaire was designed, with as specific questions as possible and both the original Greek version and the translated in English are available in the Appendix section. Lietz (2010) underlined that when performing a survey using a questionnaire, the questions should be constructed to be as clear, simple, specific, and relevant for the study's research aims as possible. Moreover, Holbrook et al. (2006), in their prominent multi-level analysis in question design, confirmed the general advice to keep questions or statements in a questionnaire as short as possible. Following this approach, the questions were limited to 14, of which the first three were about the demographic characteristics of the participants (gender, age, education), one was about how often they visit Wikipedia, and the other ten were about the users' experiences with interactive technologies applied in Wikipedia's articles. The questions were simple, understandable, and short. At the same time, in cases where it was deemed appropriate, they were accompanied by visual material, which helped the users fully understand the question's content (Figure 1). For example, when the users had to comment on their experience using hyperlinks in Wikipedia articles, that question was accompanied by a corresponding photo that showed what exactly is defined as a hyperlink in an article. In this way, the questions were made to be as understandable as possible while remaining concise.
12
Figure 1: Visual aid to help the participants understand what page preview tool is
The questions were formulated following the theoretical framework of this study. Based on the theories of storytelling and interactive technologies, as presented above, there was a need to investigate Wikipedia’s specific interactive tools and effectiveness. Therefore, to construct the central questions of the survey, firstly, I compare concepts and ideas of interactive technologies that I found during the literature review with Wikipedia’s interface. For example, when it comes to interactive storytelling, hyperlinks play a significant role, and I have included them in the questionnaire. Moreover, the questions were also formulated to support the main RQ and the sub-research question of this study, apparently to collect sufficient responses to answer them. For instance, a set of questions that ask users to evaluate Wikipedia’s interactive tools were applied in the questionnaire to collect data and responses and answer one of the sub-research questions. Overall, the questions were formulated to support this study and guide participants to provide as accurate and significant to the survey responses as possible.
5.2.3 Data analysis method There are multiple methods of analyzing quantitative data collected in surveys. For this study, to present information collected by users meaningfully, the data mining method was applied. Descriptive statistical analysis was preferred for this thesis. As pointed out by Goos and Meintrup (2015), the descriptive statistic is used to quantitatively summarize and describe the basic features of the data in a study. They also underlined that describing the sample data is the first step in an investigation, and the second phase involves analyzing and interpreting the sample. Data collected in a sample can potentially be represented in various ways by using graphs or tables. The process of summarizing and describing data with descriptive statistical analysis can generate a clear idea of the collected data. This approach was applied for this
13
thesis as well, to summarize users' responses and present data with the use of graphs. Although descriptive statistics is very complex and with many possibilities, data collected from this survey was quite manageable. There were no special requirements for in-depth analysis or the application of more sophisticated data processing methods. To extract useful information from the data collected during this specific online survey, users' responses were presented on a scale of percentages. Andrews et al. (2020) underlined that a descriptive statistic summarizes and presents data in an acceptable way for a particular investigation. They also explained that this data analysis method focuses on statistical modeling and knowledge discovery, emphasizing extracting insights from raw information. To achieve that in this thesis, the users' responses were collected and presented in visual graphs – with the use of Google Forms, these graphs were analyzed by applying the theoretical framework of this paper. This was an automated process, and therefore, there was a need for "cleaning data" processes and evaluation of statistics and data representation on the graphs. The data was then transferred into an XML file, where they were organized as statistical representations. For example, what percentage of users believe a) and what percentage b). The process was simple but sophisticated enough. Users' responses were organized on the XML file according to the provided questions. There were included data in numeric versions and as percentages in every category, and no images or any other visual aid was used. There were only numbers and rates. This process was conducted manually by the researcher since the data was manageable. It was feasible to perform the transferring from the Google Form questionnaire to the XML file manually. However, to extract information and provide an in-depth analysis, statistical representation was not sufficient, and there was a need to connect this funding with relevant theories and analyze them according to these theories.
5.3 Ethics and Limitations The methodology that will be applied in this study is online research, with questionnaires. To understand the digital communication between the interactive storytelling of Wikipedia and the users, and to collect data from users' corresponding, a survey data collection method was applied. Vehovar and Manfreda (2008) pointed out that surveys consist of standard and helpful tools for any empirical research in social sciences. There are several ways of administering a survey. Still, first, there is a need to construct the primary research question and to organize the methodological approach which will follow, to make a solid, in-depth, and accurate research. This paper aims not to generalize any result, and therefore there was a focus on becoming as precise as possible. Given that the researcher lives in Greece and this research will be conducted for practical reasons online, several restrictions have arisen. Having access to online communities with users who frequently visit Wikipedia, I contacted them to ask their members to participate in this survey. However, most community members are Greeks, and therefore the research was ultimately chosen to be limited to the Greek public, to which I have better access.
14
The choice of this specific focus group was consequently made for purely practical reasons and reasons of access and proximity. According to Eynon et al. (2017), the use of traditional social science methods, such as surveys and interviews in the online environment, has recently become prevalent. Moreover, Regmi et al. (2016) underlined that data collection through online surveys appears to collect an amount of data efficiently, economically, potentially, and within relatively short time frames. Even though, as stated by Mann (2003), online versions of traditional social science methods raise significant ethical challenges, such as the concerns of consent, privacy, and anonymity, online research remains a very effective method for data collection. Therefore, to collect data related to Wikipedia storytelling and its interactive approach, an online survey using questionnaires was conducted for efficient reasons. A significantly important aspect of an online survey is the involvement of ethical considerations to protect subjects and the publication of the information in the research. Research ethics vary, and there are plenty of issues that a researcher should consider during the data collection process. Mantzorou (2011) pointed out that among the major ethical issues in conducting research are properly informing the participants on the topic and the overall research process, protecting them from experiencing an unpleasant feeling, and respecting their anonymity confidentiality, ensuring their privacy. Agunloye (2019) stated that a responsible, respectable, and successful engagement in research requires adherence to certain basic professional, ethical principles to sustain the fidelity of academic work and the integrity of the researcher, and defined ethics as the way and manner people should act in a knowledge context, based on what they know, ought to know and should know. For this exploratory study, a set of ethical issues was considered to conclude responsible research and protect the participants. Initially, the questionnaire was compiled in an understandable way, and visual aids were added to have the best possible picture of the research in which they were to participate. An introductory note was then added to the questionnaire, which provided helpful information for the investigation to access all the study details. For instance, the purpose for which it is carried out, under the supervision of which authority and the researcher. To protect participants' privacy and provide confidentiality, this online research was anonymous, and users did not need to provide information that could identify them. However, they were asked to provide personal information such as their gender, age, and level of education, from which the users are not identified individually. Still, this information is used for research purposes. Moreover, to answer the questionnaire, the participants had to use an e-mail (to avoid the possibility of duplicate answers), data that were not used in the research, nor were they made public. To ensure anonymity, this very personal data, which could potentially be used to identify specific individuals, has been removed from the survey. There were not presented in the results of this study, neither are they used for any other purposes. In the Google Forms questionnaires, only the researcher has access to e-mail addresses. They were not even transferred into the XML file to completely protect this very personal data. The research did not reference sensitive
15
issues, which could cause unpleasant feelings to the participants or put them in a difficult position. The results of the present study cannot be generalized. For example, in the two online groups whose members were invited to participate in this survey, thousands of active members. Only a small number of them participated in the survey, so there are prospects for an even more extensive survey involving more users for more responses and, therefore, more data to collect and analyze. To ensure the anonymity of this study, it is not possible to know how many of the participants come from each group or whether the questionnaires were answered only by members of one group. The fact that it was distributed electronically to both groups means that the origin of the responses cannot be identified. Also, only Greek users participated in the survey. It would be interesting to conduct corresponding surveys with users from different countries and then study the results of the surveys in comparison. Besides, this thesis is limited to users familiar with Wikipedia and new technologies. Participants are considered either experts or users with relevant knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia and interactive technologies. It would be interesting to conduct a similar survey with users who are not considered experts or belong to groups that have a thorough knowledge of new technologies and collect - process corresponding data. In summary, the present research could be the trigger for even more broad research either with the participation of more Wikipedia users from Greece or through the involvement of users from different countries and the comparison of the results.
6 Results – Analysis In this chapter, there is the analysis section, where data collected through the online survey is presented in detail. Users’ perspectives on interactive storytelling of Wikipedia are displayed, and then an analysis of these results follows. A section describes the connection between the results of this study and the theoretical framework presented above and research of how the theories of interactive storytelling, digital communication, and social constructionism are applied based on users’ responses.
6.1 Research Population A total of 61 Wikipedia users participated in this survey, and 75.4% of them were women, while the remaining 24.6% were men. Most participants belong to the age group under 25 years (37.7% of participants), with the age group of 26-35 following (34.4% of participants). Also, 18% of the users who participated in the present survey belong to 46-55 and 8.2% to the age group of 36-45. The remaining 1.6% of users belong to the group over 56 years old. Regarding the level of education of Wikipedia users who participated in this survey, 52.5% have a university degree, and 36.1% have a master's degree. Also, 8.2% of the users have received secondary education, while the 3.3% of them are college graduates. Participants were initially asked to rate how often they visited Wikipedia, and 44.3% of them use Wikipedia 1-
16
2 times a week, while 32.8% said they do not use the platform as often. Also, 21.3% of participants use Wikipedia almost every day, while the remaining 1.6% rarely.
6.2 Research Findings From the collection and analysis of the responses of Wikipedia users who participated in the present research, some interesting conclusions emerged about the process of user interaction with the interactive technologies of this online community. Users were first asked to determine if they were using the interactive technologies available in Wikipedia’s storytelling and indicating how often they used the tools (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Users were asked to describe how often they use interactive tools
Most participants (62.3%) stated that they sometimes use the interactive storytelling tools (hyperlinks to other articles, navigation tables, page previews, photos, external sources of information, etc.) offered by this online platform. This is valuable funding since it suggests a clear tendency in users' behavior to utilize interactive digital tools provided by Wikipedia. Therefore it is likely this choice to also influence the digital communication process within the platform. Only 6.6% of users noted that they always use these interactive tools, while 19.7% of survey participants almost always use these tools. It is worth noting that 11.5% of the participants indicated that they rarely use the interactive tools of Wikipedia.
Users were then asked to identify which interactive storytelling tool Wikipedia offers in its articles, which they consider to be the most user-friendly (Figure 3). Based on their responses, 42.6% of users estimate that hyperlinks to Wikipedia articles that allow users to navigate from one article to another are the platform's
17
most user-friendly interactive tool. At the same time, 32.8% find links from a Wikipedia article to an external source more user-friendly. Also, 19.7% of survey participants estimate that the most user-friendly interactive tool of Wikipedia storytelling is navigation tables that help users navigate from one point of the article to another. In addition, 4.9% find the tool that offers page preview as the most user- friendly.
Participants in the online survey were asked to rate the interactive storytelling tools available in Wikipedia articles. A 62.3% of Wikipedia users rate these tools as satisfactory, while 32.8% estimate that improvements are needed. Only 1.6% of users described Wikipedia's interactive tools as "excellent," while another 1.6% described them as "inadequate."
Figure 3: User's responses on which interactive tool is the most user-friendly
Users were then asked about their experience in reading articles on Wikipedia using the interactive tools. More specifically, they were asked to evaluate how they find the fact that through interactive technologies, they can create their reading paths and end up with different narratives (Figure 4). In fact, 67.2% of users evaluate as "satisfactory" this feature offered by Wikipedia, while 26.2% estimate that "improvements are needed." Also, 3.3% of the participants consider as "excellent" the reading process while 1.6% of the users as "insufficient." Participants were asked to evaluate the interactive storytelling tools of this online community individually. Using a scale from 1 to 5, where the number 5 represents excellent, users were asked how they rate interactive storytelling tools. Most users (54.1%) rated with a score of 4 the hyperlinks used in Wikipedia articles to connect them. A 16.4% rated them with a score of 5, while it is worth mentioning that only 1.6% of users rated these hyperlinks with a score of 2 and none with a score of 1. The users presented a similar response for the article preview interactive tool offered by Wikipedia's platform. In fact, 50.8% of users rated this tool using a score
18
of 4 on the relevant scale, while 24.6% of participants rated the ability to preview articles with a score of 5. Regarding the table of contents, 44.3% of the participants rate them with a score of 4, while 41% of the users with a score of 5. Evaluating the hyperlinks leading to other external sources, 44.3% of the participants use a score of 4 on the relevant scale, while 29.5% a score of 3. Summarizing this part of the research, we can see a very positive attitude of users towards the evaluation of Wikipedia's interactive tools.
Figure 4: Participants are satisfied with the tools and the fact that they can construct narratives
Participants were then asked to comment on improvements that could be made to Wikipedia's interactive storytelling tools (Figure 5). The participants were provided with a couple of suggestions for them to choose from. Still, they also could give another answer by clicking on the "other" section and writing their recommendations. However, mainly the participants did not make use of this option. Most users (36.1%) believe that augmented reality tools can significantly improve the Wikipedia interface. Besides, 34.4% of users estimate that interactive graphics to display statistics and other data can also enhance interactive storytelling in Wikipedia articles. Also, 13.1% of users assess 360-degree videos can also help improve Wikipedia articles, making them more interactive and easier to use, while 11.5% believe that artificial intelligence can be offered. There was also a percentage of 1.6% of users who say that an interactive tool that will verify the validity of the information presented in Wikipedia articles can also be valuable. At the end of the research, participants were asked to determine whether they, besides being readers of Wikipedia articles, are also creators, contributing to writing the articles hosted on the popular platform. Based on their responses, 82% of the
19
participants did not contribute with information or additions to the articles, while 18% have taken such actions.
Figure 5: User's suggestions on improving Wikipedia's interface
6.3 Analysis of results
6.3.1 Users and interactive technologies Analyzing the present research results, we can distinguish the tendency of the users' preference regarding the interactive tools in Wikipedia's storytelling. As pointed out, most users rate the hyperlinks that lead from one Wikipedia article to another as the platform's most user-friendly interactive tool. The importance of hyperlinks is something that has been highlighted since the advent of websites and the internet. Users also stated the importance of hyperlinks that lead to external information sources and allow them to move from Wikipedia to other platforms to find more data or check its accuracy. The notion behind hyperlinks to move from one Wikipedia article to another is quite like the use of hyperlinks to move from Wikipedia's platform into other online sources. The fact that users find these interactive tools as the most user-friendly leads our investigation to conclude that they are more likely to choose to interact with Wikipedia articles based on hyperlinks. Therefore, based on Conklin's (1987) perspective, the fact that Wikipedia's users tend to frequently use hyperlinks (both internal and external) when reading articles in the platform leads us to conclude that non-linear communication is achieved in Wikipedia's environment. It is also clear that, as pointed out by Crawford (2002), this preference creates meaningful and innovative communication since users utilize hyperlinks to construct their reading paths, get information, and absorb new knowledge. This theory applies to Wikipedia's users
20
since, based on their responses, there is a clear preference for hyperlinks when accessing the platform's articles. Users who participated in this study declared that they use hyperlinks to construct their narratives in Wikipedia's articles. They choose which hyperlink they want to use, and they move from one article to another by compiled pieces of information with hyperlinks. They also applied the same interactive tool to move from Wikipedia into other online platforms and access information and knowledge. This process leads users to acquire a more interactive role in reading articles and consuming knowledge. They are not obligated to follow a per-given narrative construction. Still, instead, they can use hyperlinks to navigate through an article, access other articles at the same time, or move from Wikipedia into other sources. As Glowczewski (2005) underlined, hyperlinks unfold various pathways in storytelling, which is autonomous and requires user interaction. This is a process prominently interactive, where the users acquire a more active role in the narrative of storytelling. Porteous et al. (2010) described a process like this as an innovative storytelling narrative technique to better communicate information. In a sense, Wikipedia's users not only obtain a more active role in the process of reading and absorbing information, but they can also better understand information and data presented through Wikipedia's articles. Of particular interest is that users rate the interactive navigation tables in Wikipedia articles as equally user-friendly and significantly meaningful. These navigation tables consist of an interactive tool in which hyperlinks also play a prominent role. In this case, users can move automatically from one point of the article to another by utilizing this interactive tool, creating their unique narrative pathway again. Mazzali-Lurati (2007) highlighted that hyperlinks are responsible for multilinearity, the fundamental characteristic of hypertext, capable of modifying the relationship between author and reader. Based on this notion, Wikipedia readers are not constrained by a pre-defined reading order since they can choose the reading pathways they prefer. In this respect, hyperlinks empower users with two fundamental hyper-textual and digital communication processes: navigation and the user's interpretation. Wikipedia's users interact with hyperlinks to create different dialogues and construct their narratives. Cantoni and Paolini (2001) described hyperlinks as actions being performed depending on reader choices, as they are the ones who decide which link to use and when to create their narrative. Pajares Tosca (2000) outlined that hyperlinks enliven the flow of meaning by helping users understand that there is a link that points to a relevant development of a text. While it is becoming clear that in this digital communication, Wikipedia users are taking a more active role in using such interactive hyperlink tools, there is one more perspective that needs to be considered: the fact that hyperlinks depend decisively on the author/designer's choices (Mazzali-Lurati, 2007). In addition, the navigation tables in Wikipedia articles are pre-defined by the authors who set the constitutive rules of the hyper- textual communication within the text. The same rule applies to hyperlinks that lead to other Wikipedia articles or external sources. However, what is also particularly interesting in Wikipedia's case – and something that could be further investigated in
21
the future – is that the users can also become authors and consequently acquire the role of the "creator" of such hyperlinks. Consequently, by using interactive tools, such as hyperlinks, Wikipedia's users are getting a more active role since they establish two-way communication. Instead of acquiring the role of passive readers, they can actively participate in the reading process and construct their messages. However, this active role is limited by the author/designer's choices. Authors who create articles in Wikipedia are the ones who chose which hyperlink to include and where. In a sense, they guide users' choices and control their active participation. Of particular interest, however, is that in the case of Wikipedia, users can become authors/creators simultaneously. They can even edit an article and add their hyperlinks or create a brand new one from scratch. Based on user responses, most do not choose this path but retain the reader's role and thus lose the opportunity to acquire the creator's role. Therefore, they follow the existing hyperlinks. They can potentially intervene when they want and influence the process, placing their links or evaluating the existing ones and reporting changes. Their choice of not participating in Wikipedia as creators could be further studied. This choice is likely related to users' lack of digital knowledge or the fact that they are satisfied with Wikipedia's interface or content and not feel the need to contribute more. However, this could be explained deeper with future research.
6.3.2 Users and storytelling Users described as satisfactory that they could create their storytelling pathways by applying interactive tools offered by Wikipedia. This process is achieved mainly with hyperlinks and is added to what has already been analyzed above. However, a very significant percentage of users believe that this process can be improved through targeted interventions. As Calvo and Peters (2012) noted, a humanity- centered design in online platforms could lead to an era of positive computing, which will perceive technologies consciously designed to support individual and collective well-being, intelligence, and wisdom, and to achieve a humanity-centered approach, it is crucial to include user participation in the design process of an interface on an online platform. This perspective was applied as part of the present research since the participants were asked to provide feedback and potential suggestions for improvement in the overall Wikipedia interface. Their responses could be used for more humanity-centered knowledge construction in this online community. Users' suggestions could be used as the basis for targeted changes in Wikipedia's environment, leading to a more user-friendly interface. This notion could be expanded with future qualitative research, where Wikipedia's users could participate actively in designing the platform's interface and provide their insight to improve the browsing experience. Based on users' responses, they have a lot of suggestions to improve Wikipedia's interface. As Calvo and Peters (2012) underlined, users' proposals and ideas could be used to enhance the contribution of technological advances to the benefit of society, knowledge, and wisdom. Consequently, by applying virtual reality tools, augmented reality tools, interactive graphs, or 360-degree videos in Wikipedia's interface, as suggested by users, and test their efficiency, it consists of targeted interventions that could improve the humanity-centered approach in Wikipedia design.
22
When asked to suggest possible ways to improve interactive storytelling on Wikipedia, most users expressed that augmented reality tools would be particularly useful. Weddell's perception (2013) that interactive technologies, augmented reality tools, can provide unlimited future potentials to projects like Wikipedia, this user suggestion could also improve the platform. Besides, interactive technologies aim to improve users' experiences and consist of tools that can provide future potentials and create new and innovative ways of communication. From their perspective, Amakawa and Westin (2017) stated that augmented reality tools could support intangible heritages and provide users with the ability to connect with them. As a result, we can distinguish several novel and innovative ways to incorporate such tools into Wikipedia's interactive storytelling and help users better communicate with the information contained in the articles. Based on user feedback, augmented reality tools could potentially be characterized as a user-friendly tool, significantly beneficial for the digital communication between the users and Wikipedia's messages. According to users, another way to improve interactive storytelling on Wikipedia is to integrate 360-degree videos to present information. This technology is considered part of the overall virtual reality achievements recorded in the last decade. As Bekele and Champion (2019) vividly described, virtual reality technologies enable the user-centered and personalized representation of information and consist of an innovative way to make cultural heritage digitally accessible. Cantoni et al. (2019) highlighted that innovative concepts, such as virtual reality tools, are technologies that can be useful for artifacts that cannot be touched or which are no longer available but whose existence can be relived virtually. Given that many of the Wikipedia articles refer to artifacts, monuments, or cultural heritage sites, there are also significant prospects by applying virtual reality technologies, such as 360- degree videos, to Wikipedia's interface and storytelling. Users participating in this exploratory research estimated that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could also improve interactive communication on Wikipedia. Although the term Artificial Intelligence contains several sub-concepts and tools, which are not precisely defined in the present study, users are also turning to AI to improve interactivity on Wikipedia. Since among the challenges that AI is called to face is the knowledge representation (Allen, 1994), it would be interesting to explore how such technology can improve the transmission of information within Wikipedia. In addition, as Russell and Norvig (2016) highlighted, AI is also used to describe machines that mimic cognitive functions which humans normally associate with the human brain, such as learning and problem-solving. Accordingly, AI tools could also empower Wikipedia's interface and enable an automated problem-solving process within the online community. Apart from the fact that the participants of this study were not asked to define any problems in their browsing experience in Wikipedia but only to provide their feedback on the platform's interactive storytelling, it could be interesting to investigate Wikipedia further and ask users to clarify and issues/problems or errors and then study how AI technologies might help resolve them.
23
Overall, as users also suggested, interactive graphs can also improve the interactive storytelling experience. Based on their responses, such tools could also be applied in Wikipedia's interface to improve the user experience when navigating. Interactive graphs consist of an attractive way for presenting information in a more understandable format and can help users absorb knowledge and interact with the available data in Wikipedia.
6.3.3 Users and social constructionism In addition to the above remarks, in their responses, users demonstrated a "positive" feeling towards the interactive storytelling tools offered by Wikipedia and evaluated them as user-friendly and helpful for their navigation. As social constructionism theories suggest (Cunliffe, 2008), our shared beliefs and interactions define meaning in our society. There is a collaboration process (Fairhurst and Grant, 2010) which leads us to what is essential for our communities. Also, because the meaning is developed in coordination and collaboration with others (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009), we can declare that this standard "positive" user's perception of Wikipedia's interactive storytelling adds extra meaning to the platform. Users combine their perceptions and feelings and describe Wikipedia's interactive storytelling as meaningful and vital. This perception could be further investigated by studying user perspectives on the connection between Wikipedia, as a platform and online community, and societies. Based on the fact that what is essential to our societies is constantly changing (Andrews, 2012), it is also critical to consider users' suggestions on improving Wikipedia's environment. Interactive storytelling tools such as virtual reality, augmented reality, interactive graphs, or 360-degrees videos that users participated in this study proposed could also be considered a collaborative and co-creative notion adopted by users on what could be meaningful to our societies. They suggest these interventions, and they validate the concept of interactivity is necessary both for their browsing experience and for the process of constructing narratives. Therefore, the fact that the participants of this study validate as important and meaningful these interactive technologies also underlined their importance to our society (Durrheim, 1997). This conclusion leads us to believe that applying the users' common feelings on what is essential to our communities could also improve our understanding of the word (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009). Furthermore, the participants of this study indicated that interactive storytelling tools such as hyperlinks and page preview are crucial in constructing knowledge. As social constructionism theories underline (Cunliffe, 2008), the way users interact with technologies like these could also help us better understand our surroundings and ourselves. For instance, when Wikipedia users interact with hyperlinks, they automatically give meaning to them and make them essential. However, at the same time, they redefine users' role, as from mere passive recipients of messages, they turn into active users who create narrative paths. Users retain a sense of interactive digital communication within the platform; however, most of them remain mere "readers," and only a tiny portion of users participate by contributing knowledge and information to the articles. One of the crucial aspects of interactive storytelling is the ability for users to obtain a more
24
active role and becoming co-creators (Paulus et al. declared, 2007). Wikipedia's users construct their reading paths and individually absorb knowledge (they use hyperlinks, create their pathways, and come up with different stories and narratives). In a sense, they can also be described as creators because they use pre-existing texts to develop their narratives. However, it is also apparent that users in this study chose not to apply many potentials provided by interactive storytelling. They are not actively participating in creating stories and distributing knowledge.
Figure 6: Most of the participants declared that they retain only the role of reader
The above analysis could trigger further investigation and research on the motivations that push Wikipedia users to take on the role of "creator." It would be interesting to consider whether there is a relationship between the satisfaction that users feel with the Wikipedia's interface (as shown by the present study) with the fact that they choose the role of "reader" instead of taking a more creative part and contribute with their articles and pieces of texts (Figure 6). Accordingly, the present study could be extended to use methods such as "focus groups" to investigate the accuracy of its findings further. For example, users may be optimistic about Wikipedia's interactive tools, but if asked in practice to rate their experience after navigating specific articles and under certain circumstances, there may be divergences.
7 Discussion – Conclusion
7.1 Discussion This thesis adds a new perspective to existing Wikipedia research by approaching Wikipedia as an online community and investigating the digital communication process. It also provided an overview of how interactivity works on Wikipedia and
25
how users interact with the platform's interface. Adding to the above users' suggestions on improving Wikipedia's environment, this thesis consists of an approach to Wikipedia's interactive storytelling. Its findings show the platform's users' tendency towards interactive technologies, which could be expanded with future research. In previous research, the emphasis is usually on the reliability of the information presented on the platform. Still, this thesis provides information about the user experience and the use of the interactive tools offered by Wikipedia. In addition, users who participated in this study indicated that interactive storytelling in Wikipedia's platform is a satisfactory process that leads them into a novel way of reading articles and absorbing knowledge. The emphasis has been given, though, not on the source's credibility but the narrative process. This new perspective could be further studied to understand more profound the process of digital communication within Wikipedia. In a sense, users experience an interactive reading article process, and they are aware of Wikipedia's infrastructure. This is likely to be connected with the overall role users acquire within this online community. Therefore, apart from being able to absorb knowledge interactively, they can also construct narratives and actively participate in the knowledge construction process. The platform is studied as an online community. The emphasis is on both the interactive storytelling offered by that community and how it can be improved, offering even better opportunities for reading and absorbing knowledge. It is interesting, though, that the users who participated in this study declared that they did not use the option to become creators in Wikipedia. Instead, they stick to the reader's role and use digital tools to experience an interactive process of reading articles. This conclusion indicates a lack of creators/editors in Wikipedia apart from the fact this platform could easily be described as one of the most significant online communities. So, therefore, this thesis is likely to spark a bunch of future research to investigate whether there is a connection between Wikipedia's infrastructure and users' role within the platform or the motivations behind users' choice not to participate in this online community as editors/creators actively. Users can discuss their experience in using the interactive tools in Wikipedia's interface. They make so much use of hyperlinks could be examined in-depth, both in terms of the communication process achieved through such use and in terms of the motivations that trigger such behavior by users: why do users choose hyperlinks? On what does it depend if they click on such a link? what room for improvement is there in this process, and how could the reading experience be affected? These are some research questions that could be asked in future similar research to obtain a broad picture of the importance of hyperlinks in Wikipedia's environment.
7.2 Conclusion Interactive storytelling is part of Wikipedia's infrastructure, and collaboration is the core of the platform. Approaching Wikipedia as an online community, with a focus on collaboration and co-creation, which are characteristics of Digital Humanities
26
projects, and based on the results of this thesis, it was concluded that users apply Wikipedia's digital tools to experience an interactive narrative and to absorb knowledge in new and novel ways. They know Wikipedia's infrastructure provides an open-ended narrative that empowers them to construct their narrative and contribute actively to the process of digital communication within this community. It is interesting to note that the users in this study are aware of the interactive narrative and the perspectives it offers and express their satisfaction with these interactive tools and the way they are applied with Wikipedia. The process of digital communication within Wikipedia, therefore, becomes two-way and interactive. As shown by the present research, users choose interactive tools that enable them to develop their reading paths, absorbing the information in the articles differently. This innovative process of communication, where the users are also creators and distributors, could also be studied in-depth to investigate future potentials. Conducting this qualitative research was a challenging process for me because there were time limitations. The functions of constructing a questionnaire, approaching participants, collecting and analyzing their responses are significantly time- consuming. Although, this qualitative research provoked my perspectives on ethical considerations and limitation issues and helped me obtain a better idea of how to organize and conduct an online survey. The process of visualizing data was also vital and helped me improve my skills and practice existing knowledge in data visualization. Summarizing this thesis, it is essential to underline few key points and address this research's most prominent and crucial outcomes. Users participating in this study indicated that they are entirely aware of interactive technologies, and in fact, they use them to access information in Wikipedia. They underlined the significantly important role of hyperlinks in Wikipedia's interface, and therefore these interactive tools can be considered significant, and their role could also be further investigated. Also, this study has shown that interactive technologies can empower Wikipedia users in the digital communication process. Using the available interactive tools, Wikipedia's users can also become message transmitters instead of only message receivers. Therefore, they acquire a more active role in the communication process, which they are aware of. They have access to tools and resources that could help them construct their narratives and absorb knowledge individually. Apart from the above, this research provided a very solid overview of users' suggestions on improving Wikipedia's environment. Their feedback is crucial since co-creation and co-design could lead to a better browsing experience. As an online community and as an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on its users and their contribution. Therefore, recording the insights of the users, how they operate within the platform but also their general experience is more than valuable and can contribute significantly to the improvement of the platform itself for better knowledge construction and distribution and better societies.
27
8 References Agunloye, O. O. (2019). Ethics in academic research and scholarship: An elucidation of the principles and applications. Journal of Global Education and Research, 3(2), 168-180. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.3.2.1036 Allen, R. J. (1994). Telegraphic reviews -- Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (Second Edition) by George F. Luger and William S. Stubblefield. The American Mathematical Monthly, 101(5), 492. Amakawa, J., Westin, J., 2018. New Philadelphia: using augmented reality to interpret slavery and reconstruction era historical sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies 24, 315–331. Andrews, T. (2012). What is Social Constructionism?. Grounded Theory Review. Vol. 11. 39-46. Andrews, I., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2020). Reply to: Comments on “On the Informativeness of Descriptive Statistics for Structural Estimates”. Econometrica, 88(6), 2277-2279. Arazy, O., Nov, O., Patterson, R., & Yeo, L. (2011). Information Quality in Wikipedia: The Effects of Group Composition and Task Conflict. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(4), 71-98. Retrieved March 29, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41304593 Baggio, R., & Corigliano, M. A. (2009, January). On the importance of hyperlinks: A network science approach. In ENTER (pp. 309-318). Bekele, M. K., and Champion, E. (2019). A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 91. Berry, D., & Fagerjord, A. (2017). Digital humanities: Knowledge and critique in a digital age. Cambridge, England: Malden, MA : Polity. Bostan, B., & Marsh, T. (2012). Fundamentals Of Interactive Storytelling. Academic Journal of Information Technology. 3. 10.5824/1309-1581.2012.3.002.x. Bruni L.E., & Baceviciute S. (2013) Narrative Intelligibility and Closure in Interactive Systems. In: Koenitz H., Sezen T.I., Ferri G., Haahr M., Sezen D., C̨ atak G. (eds) Interactive Storytelling. ICIDS 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8230. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02756-2_2 Burdick, A., Drucker, J., Lunenfeld, P., Presner, T., & Schnapp, J. (2012). Digital_Humanities. Open Access eBook: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262312097. Calvo, R.A. and Peters, D. (2012). Positive computing: technology for a wiser world. Interactions. 19(4) (pp.28-31).
28
Cantoni, L. & Paolini, P. (2001). Hypermedia analysis. Some insights from semiotics and ancient rhetoric. Studies in Communication Sciences/Studi di Scienze della comunicazione 1, 33–53. Cantoni, V., Mosconi, M. and Setti, A. (2019). Technological innovation and its enhancement of cultural heritage. IEEE International Symposium on INnovations in Intelligent SysTems and Applications (INISTA). Sofia. Bulgaria. pp. 1-6. Crawford, C. (2002). Art of Interactive Design. San Francisco: No Starch Press, Incorporated. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey. IEEE Computer, 20(9), 17-40. da Fontoura Costa, L., Rodrigues, A., Travieso, G., & Villas Boas, P. R. (2007). Characterization of complex networks: A survey of measurements. Advances in Physics, 56(1), 167-242. Cunliffe, A. L. (2008). Orientations to Social Constructionism: Relationally Responsive Social Constructionism and its Implications for Knowledge and Learning. Management Learning, 39(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607087578 De la Calzada, G., & Dekhtyar, A. (2010, April). On measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Information credibility (pp. 11-18). Denning, P., Horning, J., Parnas, D., & Weinstein, L. (2005). Wikipedia risks. Communications of the ACM, 48(12), 152-152. Di Sciascio, C., Strohmaier, D., Errecalde, M., & Veas, E. (2017, March). WikiLyzer: interactive information quality assessment in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 377-388). Diller, S., Shedroff, N. & Rhea, D. (2005). Making Meaning: How Successful Businesses Deliver Meaningful Customer Experiences. Dix, A. (2004). Human-computer interaction (3.rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall. Drischel, R., Drischel, D., & Brown, D. (2018). Storytelling Anthology: Storytelling in the age of the Internet, new technologies, data, artificial intelligence (Emma lathen Book 1) (1st ed.). 4P LABS AG. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Durrheim, K. (1997). Social Constructionism, Discourse, and Psychology. South African Journal of Psychology. 27. 175-182. 10.1177/008124639702700308. Dykstra-Erickson, E. (2002). Perspectives on interaction design by Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp, and Jennifer J. Preece. Interactions. New York, N.Y.. 9(2) (pp. 119- 122). Eynon, R., Fry, J., & Schroeder, R. (2017). The SAGE handbook of online research methods.
29
Fairhurst, G. T., & Grant, D. (2010). The Social Construction of Leadership: A Sailing Guide. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 171–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909359697 Glowczewski, B. (2005). Lines and Criss-crossings: Hyperlinks in Australian Indigenous Narratives. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture & Policy, (116), 24-35. Goos, P., & Meintrup, D. (2015). Statistics with JMP: Graphs, descriptive statistics and probability. West Sussex, England: Wiley. Habert, B., & Huc, C. (2010). Building together digital archives for research in social sciences and humanities. Social Science Information, 49(3), 415–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018410371570 Hansson, J., & Svensson, J. (Eds.). (2020). Doing Digital Humanities : Concepts, Approaches, Cases. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-97624 Holbrook, A., Cho, Y.1. & Johnson, T. (2006) The impact of question and respondent characteristics on comprehension and mapping difficulties. Public OpinionQuarterly, 70, 4, pp.565-595. Jemielniak, D. (2020). Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of higher education, 6(5), 26-41. Konieczny, P. (2011). Wikipedia. In G. A. Barnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social networks (Vol. 1, pp. 947-948). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www-doi- org.proxy.lnu.se/10.4135/9781412994170.n394 Lavsa, S. M., Corman, S. L., Culley, C. M., & Pummer, T. L. (2011). Reliability of Wikipedia as a medication information source for pharmacy students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 154-158. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2009). Social construction of reality. In S. W. Littlejohn, & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 1, pp. 892-894). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n344 Lee, E. A., & Messerschmitt, D. G. (2012). Digital communication. Springer Science & Business Media. Lietz, Petra. (2010). Research into Questionnaire Design: A Summary of the Literature. International Journal of Market Research, 52 (2), 249-272. Lunenfeld, P., Drucker, J., Schnapp, J., Burdick, A., & Presner, T. (2012). Digital_Humanities. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Madhow, U. (2008). Fundamentals of digital communication. Cambridge University Press.
30
Mann, C J. (2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: Cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emergency Medicine Journal: EMJ, 20(1), 54-60. Mantzorou, M. (2011). What are the major ethical issues in conducting research? is there a conflict between the research ethics and the nature of nursing?. Health science journal, 5. Mazzali-Lurati, S. (2007). Here is the author! Hyperlinks as constitutive rules of hypertextual communication. (167), 135-168. https://doiorg.proxy.lnu.se/10.1515/SEM.2007.074 McLafferty, S. L. (2003). Conducting questionnaire surveys. Key methods in geography, 1(2), 87-100. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Pajares Tosca, S. (1999). The lyrical quality of links. In Hypertext ’99: Returning to Our Diverse Roots: The 10th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Klaus Tochtermann et al. (eds.), 217–218. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. — (2000). A pragmatics of links. In Hypertext ’00: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Frank M. Shipman et al. (eds.), 77–84. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Paulus, T., Woodside, M. & Ziegler, Μ. (2007). "Determined women at work": Group construction of narrative meaning. Narrative Inquiry. 17. 299-328. 10.1075/ni.17.2.08pau. Porteous, J., Cavazza, M., & Charles, F. (2010). Applying planning to interactive storytelling. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 1(2), 1-21. Reagle, J., & Koerner, J. (2020). Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an incomplete revolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England; London, England: The MIT Press. Regmi, P. R., Waithaka, E., Paudyal, A., Simkhada, P., & van Teijlingen, E. (2016). Guide to the design and application of online questionnaire surveys. Nepal journal of epidemiology, 6(4), 640–644. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v6i4.17258 Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (3.ed., Global ed., Prentice Hall Series in Artificial Intelligence). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited;. Smith, L.D., Best, L., Stubbs, D., Johnston, J., & Archibald, A.B. (2000). Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences:. Social Studies of Science, 30, 73 – 94. Sneha N., Jake O., Jonathan M., Benjamin M. H., & Aaron S. 2017. The Wikipedia Adventure: Field Evaluation of an Interactive Tutorial for New Users. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1785–1799. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998307
31
Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K. (2008). "Overview: Online Surveys". In Fielding, N.; Lee, R. M.; Blank, G. (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. London: SAGE. pp. 177–194. ISBN 978-1-4129-2293-7. Völkel, M., Krötzsch, M., Vrandecic, D., Haller, H., & Studer, R. (2006, May). Semantic Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 585-594). Weddell, S. (2013). Digital Humanities in Practice. Edited by Claire Warwick, Melissa Terras, Julianne Nyhan. Digital Humanities in Practice. London: Facet Publishing 2012. Library Management. 34(6/7) (pp. 558-560). West, R., Paranjape, A., & Leskovec, J. (2015, May). Mining missing hyperlinks from human navigation traces: A case study of Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1242-1252). Witten, I., Bainbridge, D., & Nichols, D. (2009). How to build a digital library (2nd ed., Morgan Kaufmann series in multimedia information and systems). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
32
Appendix 1
Questionnaire (translated version)
Interactive Storytelling in Wikipedia General info: The following questionnaire is part of the dissertation research entitled "Digital communication and interactive storytelling in Wikipedia" prepared in the framework of the postgraduate program Digital Humanities of Linnaeus University in Sweden. Participation in the research is anonymous. Researcher: George Mavridis Number of participants: 61
Gender: Male – 24,6% Female – 75,4%
Age: Under 25 (37,7%) 26 – 35 (34,4%) 36 – 45 (8,2%) 46 – 55 (18%) Over 56 (1,6%)
Education: High School (8,2%) College (Public or Private) (3,3%) University (52,5%) Postgraduate (36,1%)
How often do you use Wikipedia? Almost every day – 21,3%
1
1-2 times a week – 44,3% No so often – 32,8% Rarely – 1,6%
When reading an article on Wikipedia, do you use the interactive storytelling tools (hyperlinks to other articles, navigation tables, page previews, photos, external sources of information, etc.) provided by the platform? Always – 6,6% Almost always – 19,7% Sometimes – 62,3% Almost never – 11,5% Never – 0
Which interactive storytelling tool do you find most useful? Hyperlinks to other articles in Wikipedia – 42,6% Navigation tables within the article – 19,7% Links to external sources of information – 32,8% Page preview – 4,9%
How do you rate the interactive storytelling tools offered by Wikipedia? Excellent – 1,6% Satisfactory – 62,3% Improvements are needed – 32,8% Not so satisfactory – 1,6% Other – 1,6%
When you read an article on Wikipedia and use interactive storytelling tools, you end up creating your own unique reading path. How do you evaluate this experience on this platform? Excellent – 3,3% Satisfactory – 67,2%
2
Improvements are needed – 26,2% Not so satisfactory – 1,6% Other – 1,6%
From 1 to 5, with an excellent 5, how do you rate the hyperlinks in Wikipedia articles which link one article to another? 1 – 0% 2 – 1,6% 3 – 27,9% 4 – 54,1% 5 – 16,4%
From 1 to 5, with an excellent 5, how do you rate the page preview on Wikipedia that allows you to see some key elements in an article before clicking on it? 1 – 0% 2 – 1,6% 3 – 23% 4 – 50,8% 5 – 24,6%
From 1 to 5, with an excellent 5, how do you rate the table of contents that exist in an article on Wikipedia and allow you to navigate from one point of the text to another? 1 – 0% 2 – 4,9% 3 – 9,8% 4 – 44,3% 5 – 41%
3
From 1 to 5, with an excellent 5, how do you rate the hyperlinks in Wikipedia articles that allow you to go directly to relevant external sources and get additional information? 1 – 0% 2 – 6,6% 3 – 29,5% 4 – 44,3% 5 – 19,7%
Choose which of the following do you think would help your reading experience in Wikipedia articles Augmented reality tools – 36,1% 360o video – 13,1% Artificial Intelligence – 11,5% Interactive graphics for illustration statistics – 34,4% I have no opinion – 1,6% Some kind of accreditation that whatever writes the page has been verified and crossed before being published – 1,6% Interactive tools and maybe TN (AI) – 1,6%
Besides reading articles on Wikipedia, have you been involved in contributing, either by writing articles or adding information to existing articles on the platform? Yes – 18% No – 82%
Appendix 1
Questionnaire (original version - Greek)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11