Stronniczość Wikipedii

Z Literatura przedmiotu
Skocz do: nawigacja, szukaj

Książki

  1. Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. - Good Faith Collaboration_ The Culture of Wikipedia (History and Foundations of Information Science) -The MIT Press (2010)
  2. Andrew Lih - The Wikipedia Revolution_ How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia-Hyperion e-books (2009)
  3. Thomas Leitch - Wikipedia U_ Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age-Johns Hopkins University Press (2014)
  4. Dariusz Jemielniak - Common Knowledge__ An Ethnography of Wikipedia-Stanford University Press (2014)
  5. Arwid Lund (auth.) - Wikipedia, Work and Capitalism_ A Realm of Freedom_-Palgrave Macmillan (2017)
  6. Pentzold, Christian: Wikipedia und Wissenschaftskommunikation. In: Perspektiven der

Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter, hg. von Peter Weingart, Holger Wormer,

Andreas Wenninger und Reinhard F. Hüttl, Weilerswist 2017,
  1. Merrilee Proffitt - Leveraging Wikipedia_ Connecting Communities of Knowledge-ALA Publishing (2018)
  2. Dan O'Sullivan - Wikipedia-Ashgate (2009)
  3. Pohl, R. F.m Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment, and memory. London: Routledge. (2017).

Artykuły

Popularne

  1. Michael Blanding, Wikipedia Or Encyclopædia Britannica: Which Has More Bias?, "Forbes" Jan 20, 2015, [1]
    • "Zhu and Greenstein then identified some 4,000 articles that appeared in both Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia, and determined how many of each of these code words were included, in an effort to determine overall bias and direction. They found that in general, Wikipedia articles were more biased—with 73 percent of them containing code words, compared to just 34 percent in Britannica. In almost all cases, Wikipedia was more left-leaning than Britannica."
  2. Martin Cohen, Encyclopaedia Idiotica, "Times Higher Education" 28 August 2008 [2]
  3. Walter Frick, Wikipedia Is More Biased Than Britannica, but Don’t Blame the Crowd, "Harvard Business Review", December 03, 2014
  4. Simon Griffin, Top 10 Serious Problems With Wikipedia, "Listverse" MARCH 13, 2020 [3]
    • "In 2018, the same researchers compared 4,000 Wiki articles on US politics to Encyclopaedia Britannica. They found that 73% of articles on Wikipedia were biased, compared to just 34% of those in Encyclopedia Britannica."
  5. Poppy Noor, Wikipedia biases, "The Guardian", Sun 29 Jul 2018 [4]
    • "the male-dominated, pro-western worldview"
    • "In an English-language article about Russia’s annexation of Crimea, for example, 24% of sources were Ukrainian and 20% Russian. In the German version, Russian sources made up 10% of citations and Ukrainian sources only 3%."

Ogólnie

  1. Omer Benjakob, The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed, "Haarec" Oct 04, 2019 [5] ([6])
    • "systematic effort by Polish nationalists to whitewash hundreds of Wikipedia articles relating to Poland and the Holocaust."
    • "The more eyes – that is, the more diverse the community of editors – the better the quality of the online encyclopedia. That’s why many of the local versions, especially those tied to languages spoken only in one country (like Hebrew or Polish) have a smaller pool of editors and therefore tend to reflect local national biases. "
    • "Surprisingly, perhaps, while the myth of the gas chambers at KL Warschau succeeded in English Wikipedia, it met a very different fate in other languages. For example, though the article was translated into 12 languages, it never made its way into Hebrew, where the camp is only noted in passing as part of the article for the Warsaw Ghetto. In German the error was quickly weeded out. Even in Polish, revisionist editors faced greater opposition than in English: The Polish article claimed, for example, that the death count was “contested” and for the past three years it no longer characterized KL Warschau as an extermination camp – while the English version continued to carry the myth until May 2019."
    • "As a result of their decision, henceforth, any attempt by one editor to label another editor or source as revisionist or anti-Semitic can be considered a form of hate speech on Wikipedia."
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence
    • "That was the case in the article on the Nowy Sacz Ghetto, where the two reworked the article together so that almost half of it would focus on Holocaust rescue. The two also “rescued” the articles for the Sosnowiec Ghetto and the Radom Ghetto. In his defense, Piotrus said that the edits were not an attempt to push out falsehoods, but rather only to shine light on the topic of Polish rescue of Jews, which he said were “under-researched” and even ignored by the likes of Yad Vashem."
  2. Ewa S. Callahan, Susan C. Herring, Cultural bias in Wikipedia content on famous persons, Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. Oct2011, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p1899-1915. 17p. 6 Charts, 12 Graphs.
  3. Shane Greenstein, Feng Zhu, Is Wikipedia Biased?, "American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings", 102, no. 3 (May 2012) [7]
    • "There is a weak tendency for articles to become less biased over time. Instead, the overall change arises from the entry of later vintages of articles with an opposite point of view from earlier articles.", s. 347
  4. Greenstein, Zhu, and Yuan Gu, Ideological Segregation among Online Collaborators: Evidence from Wikipedians (2016)
    • "Our findings point toward patterns that lead contributors to offer content to those with different points of view, which we call the OA effect. We also show that contributors moderate their contribution over time. The change in contributions are more extreme and have greater biases. These effects reinforce the prevalence of unsegregated conversations at Wikipedia over time.", s. 29
  5. Greenstein, Zhu, and Yuan Gu, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia 2018. MIS Quarterly 42(3): 945-959.
  6. Christoph Hube, Bias in Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion (2017)
  7. Koerner, Jackie (2019). Wikipedia Has a Bias Problem. Wikipedia @ 20. Retrieved from https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/u5vsaip5
  8. A. Oeberst, I. von der Beck, M. D Back, U. Cress, S. Nestler: Biases in the production and reception of collective knowledge: the case of hindsight bias in Wikipedia. In: Psychological research. [elektronische Veröffentlichung vor dem Druck] April 2017, DOI:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7, PMID 28417198.
    • "Hindsight bias is the tendency to overestimate in hindsight what one has known in foresight. Once an event occurred, people tend to perceive it as more likely, more inevitable, or more foreseeable than they had before its occurrence"
  9. Neil Thompson, Douglas Hanley, Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence From a Randomized Control Trial, MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5238-17
    • "“I sometimes think that general and popular treatises are almost as important for the progress of science as original work.” — Charles Darwin, 1865"
    • "Our results indicate that Wikipedia articles causally affect the content of scientific articles and our back-of-the-envelope estimates suggests that these effect sizes are meaningful and that they happen quickly." (s. 28)
    • "usage of Wikipedia is lower in low GDP-per-capita parts of the world" (s. 33)
    • "We find that Wikipedia seems to act as a collection of review articles, helping to shape how scientists contextualize their own research and pointing them to the most important scientific articles that relate to their question." (s. 34)
    • "the creation of a Wikipedia science article leads to changes in hundreds of follow-on articles in the scientific literature — providing strong evidence that Wikipedia is an important source for disseminating knowledge. Because our work goes beyond correlation to establish causation, we can conclude that Wikipedia doesn’t just reflect the state of the scientific literature, it helps shape it." (s. 37)
    • "We show that Wikipedia has broad influence on the way that scientists discuss and contextualize their own work. Moreover, we show that it acts as an organizer of scientific knowledge, directing researchers to the underlying literature in a way that is akin to a review article in that field. Because of Wikipedia’s enormous scope, this almost assuredly means that it is one of the most important sources of scientific review articles in the world." (s. 37)

Gender

Zob. Gender gap

Zob. Wikipedia i gender

Polityka

Pojęcie biasu

  1. Rodzaje biasu

Strony internetowe

  1. Wikipedia, w: Media Bias/Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikipedia/
  2. https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Wikipedia

  1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/JackieKoerner/Addressing_Implicit_Bias_on_Wikipedia
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Susceptibility_to_bias
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias

Przykłady

 "الصحافة في المنطقة العربية قديمة قدم التاريخ، و يرجع تاريخها إلى زمن البابليين حيث استخدموا كتابا لتسجيل أهم الأحداث اليومية ليتعرف عليها الناس." 
"The Arab newspapers industry started in the early 19th century with the Iraqi newspaper Journal Iraq published by Ottoman Wali, Dawud Pasha, in Baghdad in 1816.[1]"