Wikipedia: Różnice pomiędzy wersjami

Z Literatura przedmiotu
Skocz do: nawigacja, szukaj
(→‎Artykuły)
(→‎Stronniczość (bias))
Linia 33: Linia 33:
  
 
==Stronniczość (bias)==
 
==Stronniczość (bias)==
−
===Książki===
+
Zob. [[Stronniczość Wikipedii]]
−
# Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. - Good Faith Collaboration_ The Culture of Wikipedia (History and Foundations of Information Science)  -The MIT Press (2010)
+
−
# Andrew Lih - The Wikipedia Revolution_ How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia-Hyperion e-books (2009)
+
−
# Thomas Leitch - Wikipedia U_ Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age-Johns Hopkins University Press (2014)
+
−
# Dariusz Jemielniak - Common Knowledge__ An Ethnography of Wikipedia-Stanford University Press (2014)
+
−
# Arwid Lund (auth.) - Wikipedia, Work and Capitalism_ A Realm of Freedom_-Palgrave Macmillan (2017)
+
−
# Merrilee Proffitt - Leveraging Wikipedia_ Connecting Communities of Knowledge-ALA Publishing (2018)
+
−
# Dan O'Sullivan - Wikipedia-Ashgate (2009)
+
−
# Pohl, R. F.m Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment, and memory. London: Routledge. (2017).
+
  
−
===Artykuły===
 
−
# Julia Adams, Hannah Brückner, and Cambria Naslund, Who Counts as a Notable Sociologist on Wikipedia? Gender, Race, and the “Professor Test”, "Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World" 2019, Volume 5: 1–14 [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023118823946]
 
−
# Omer Benjakob, The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed, "Haarec" Oct 04, 2019 [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Icewhiz/KL_Warschau_conspiracy_theory])
 
−
#* "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."
 
−
# Michael Blanding, Wikipedia Or Encyclopædia Britannica: Which Has More Bias?, "Forbes" Jan 20, 2015, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/#33f407e97d4a]
 
−
# Martin Cohen, Encyclopaedia Idiotica, "Times Higher Education" 28 August 2008 [https://web.archive.org/web/20110906163412/http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403327]
 
−
# Walter Frick, Wikipedia Is More Biased Than Britannica, but Don’t Blame the Crowd, "Harvard Business Review", December 03, 2014
 
−
# Ford, Heather (2016). "'Anyone can edit' not everyone does: Wikipedia and the gender gap". Social Studies of Science.
 
−
# Paul Hyman, Gender Bias at Wikipedia?, Communications of the ACM. Oct2011, Vol. 54 Issue 10, p18-18. 1/3p.
 
−
# Shane Greenstein, Feng Zhu, Is Wikipedia Biased?, "American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings", 102, no. 3 (May 2012) [https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/is_wikipedia_biased]
 
−
#* "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
 
−
# 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
 
−
# Simon Griffin, Top 10 Serious Problems With Wikipedia, "Listverse" MARCH 13, 2020 [https://listverse.com/2020/03/13/top-10-serious-problems-with-wikipedia/]
 
−
# Poppy Noor, Wikipedia biases, "The Guardian", Sun 29 Jul 2018 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-five-wikipedia-biases-pro-western-male-dominated
 
−
#* "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%."
 
−
# 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"
 
−
# Joseph M. Reagle, Lauren Rhue, Gender bias in Wikipedia and Britannica, "International Journal of Communication" 5 : 2011. [https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/777/631]
 
−
#* "We conclude that Wikipedia provides better coverage and longer articles, and that it typically has more articles on women than Britannica in absolute terms, but we also find that Wikipedia articles on women are more likely to be missing than are articles on men relative to Britannica."
 
−
# 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)
 
  
−
# [[Bias|Rodzaje biasu]]
 
−
 
−
===Strony internetowe===
 
−
# https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/JackieKoerner/Addressing_Implicit_Bias_on_Wikipedia
 
−
# Wikipedia, w: Media Bias/Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikipedia/
 
−
# https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
 
−
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
 
−
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
 
−
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Susceptibility_to_bias
 
−
 
−
===Przykłady===
 
−
* Syn, córka
 
−
* https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powstanie_styczniowe
 
−
* https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziemie_zabrane
 
−
* malapropizm (bynajmniej)
 
−
*https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%85%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D9%81_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9
 
−
  "الصحافة في المنطقة العربية قديمة قدم التاريخ، و يرجع تاريخها إلى زمن البابليين حيث استخدموا كتابا لتسجيل أهم الأحداث اليومية ليتعرف عليها الناس."
 
−
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_newspapers
 
−
"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]"
 
  
 
# motywacja: grywalizacja - homo ludens
 
# motywacja: grywalizacja - homo ludens

Wersja z 18:22, 1 kwi 2020

Wiarygodność

  1. Jim Giles, Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, "Nature" 438 (15 December 2005) [1]
    • "entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team."
    • "among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."
    • "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
    • "The most error-strewn article, that on Dmitry Mendeleev, co-creator of the periodic table, illustrates this. Michael Gordin, a science historian at Princeton University who wrote a 2004 book on Mendeleev, identified 19 errors in Wikipedia and 8 in Britannica."
  2. Holtz, P., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2018). Using big data techniques for measuring productive friction in mass collaboration online environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4)
  3. Jaron Lanier, Digital Maoizm: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism, Edge 2006, [2]
    • "The collective is more likely to be smart when it isn't defining its own questions, when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree. Under those circumstances, a collective can be smarter than a person."
    • "Every authentic example of collective intelligence that I am aware of also shows how that collective was guided or inspired by well-meaning individuals. These people focused the collective and in some cases also corrected for some of the common hive mind failure modes. The balancing of influence between people and collectives is the heart of the design of democracies, scientific communities, and many other long-standing projects."
  4. Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1662–1674. doi:10.1002/asi.20870
  5. P. D. MAGNUS, On Trusting Wikipedia, Episteme 2009
    • Ocena wiarygodności źródeł: authority, plausible style, plausible content, calibration, sampling, s. 79)
  6. Magnus, P.D. (August 2006) ’Epistemology and the Wikipedia.’ Presented at the North American Computing and Philosophy Conference in Troy, New York. http://hdl.handle.net/1951/42589
    • "I have argued that we should not assimilate Wikipedia to the kind encyclopedia. For one thing, we use it differently. Moreover, it frustrates the methods by which we judge the claims of traditional information sources like encyclopedias. This does not mean that Wikipedia is worthless or that we ought not use it at all. Yet it does mean that we should be wary of it and that we should try to develop methods which are suitable to it." (s. 7)
  7. Lawrence M. Sanger (2009). The Fate of Expertise after Wikipedia. Episteme, 6, pp 52-73.
    • "But some Wikipedia articles suffer because so many aggressive people drive off people more knowledgeable than they are; so there is no reason to think that Wikipedia’s articles will continually improve."
    • "(WPT) The Wikipedia Potential Thesis. If Wikipedia fulfills its highest potential in terms of measurable quality, then experts will thereafter not need to be granted positions of special authority in order for humanity to have a resource that accurately tracks expert opinion."
    • "If I write something in my blog or in a wiki article, and you believe it, and no experts were consulted in the process, then operationally speaking, experts are no longer needed."
    • "Moreover, if, like Foucauldians, you believe that knowledge-claims function as assertions or endorsements of power, you might celebrate the fact that Wikipedia not only literally constructs knowledge but does so apparently without any specially privileged class of persons in power in the Wikipedia system."
    • "it is incorrect to suppose that Wikipedia is uniformly open and welcoming to all comers – that it really is the egalitarian paradise that simplistic portrayals suggest"
    • "anti-expert bias" (s. 63)
    • "Wikipedia’s articles in fields such as mathematics, engineering, computer science, and the hard sciences are rather better developed and of higher quality than its articles in the social sciences, humanities, and the arts – consistent with the finding of the aforementioned, flawed Nature report, which was limited to scientific topics. This, I think, is because the fields themselves are somewhat more amenable to straightforward negotiation, because expertise and sound methodology in these fields are easier for the average contributor to recognize and respect. In physics, for example, there is simply less to debate about than in, say, philosophy."
    • "There appears to be an assumption on the part of many Wikipedians, and even some researchers who ought to know to be at least skeptical, that while Wikipedia articles can decline in quality, they tend to improve over the long term. I believe that anecdotal evidence over the years, at least, has shown this to be incorrect, and I have spoken with a great many experts who appear to agree with me."
    • "The difficulty, as many disaffected Wikipedians have discovered, is that there are far too many articles persistently “managed” by aggressive individuals who will simply not let it improve in certain respects. In disputes, these persons tend to drive off more knowledgeable people, thereby keeping the quality of articles low."
    • "Wikipedia might be best described as having a rule of the most persistent – or, perhaps, a rule of those with nothing better to do. Since experts tend to be very busy professionals, they often cannot keep up their side of the edit war, and they lose by default."
    • "there is an entrenched group of Wikipedians who generally have Administrator authority in the project and who tend to work in very informal groups that back each other up. In short, the people who are tasked with enforcing what are supposed to be merely behavioral rules, not content rules, do frequently impose their will when it comes to content matters. This is a large part of the complaint I made earlier about “gaming the system.”"
    • "allegedly observed tendency of expert-crafted articles to deteriorate over time – to descend to the level of mediocrity with which the most persistent Wikipedians feel comfortable, as it were."
    • "punishments are ineffective against the most determined rulebreakers, and this is widely acknowledged to be one of the biggest management headaches for the project." (sockpuppets)
    • "Wikipedia is ruled by the most persistent, or those with the most time on their hands, not necessarily the most knowledgable"
    • "if its managers wanted Wikipedia to become a really authoritative source, they would need to embrace expertise and expert-friendly policies such as real names. Consequently, its reliability will probably never rise to the level of the Britannica, let alone the “99.8% accurate” level I was discussing earlier."


Stronniczość (bias)

Zob. Stronniczość Wikipedii


  1. motywacja: grywalizacja - homo ludens
  2. Wiki-Wiki - imię tytułowej postaci opowiadania napisanego przez Martina Edena

Bibliografie


Dane badawcze

Badania Wikipedii

Problem reklam

Historia idei wiki

  • Ðorde Stakic Wiki technology - origin, development and importance Infotheca, No. 1-2, Vol. X, June 2009. 2009 [397] Origin, development and importance of Wikipedia, Wiki software (MediaWiki) and Wiki technology.

[hide] Objective: Late 20th century and early 21st century are marked by the emergence and expansion of Wiki technology in the field of informational technologies. The largest ever compiled encyclopedia, Wikipedia, emerged from Wiki technology. Compilation of Wikipedia as the most successful project based on Wiki technology showed true potential of Wiki software. This software is now widely used and imposes itself as a new standard. In addition to Wikipedia, local Wiki Web sites are important as well.

  • Sanja Perovic, The Intelligible as a New World? Wikipedia versus the Eighteenth-Century Encyclopéédie. Paragraph. Mar2011, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p12-29. 18p.

For some time now, certain theorists have been urging us to move beyond text-based understandings of culture to consider the impact of new media on the structure and organization of knowledge. This article, however, reconsiders the usual priority given to digital media by comparing Wikipedia, the free, user-led online Encyclopedia, with Diderot and D'Alembert's eighteenth-century Encyclopéédie. It begins by suggesting that the dichotomy between information system and text is not sufficient for describing the differences between the two. It then considers more closely the type of critical thinking presupposed by the Encyclopéédie. It concludes by raising the question of the role of judgement in making sense of any encyclopedia in a modern world in which knowledge systems only coexist on the condition of being partially blind to one another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studia nad Zagładą

  • Bar-Ilan, Judit Web links and search engine ranking: The case of Google and the query "jew" Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Volume 57 2006 [278]


The World Wide Web has become one of our more important information sources, and commercial search engines are the major tools for locating information; however, it is not enough for a Web page to be indexed by the search engines-it also must rank high on relevant queries. One of the parameters involved in ranking is the number and quality of links pointing to the page, based on the assumption that links convey appreciation for a page. This article presents the results of a content analysis of the links to two top pages retrieved by Google for the query jew" as of July 2004: the "jew" entry on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia and the home page of {"Jew} Watch a highly {anti-Semitic} site. The top results for the query jew" gained public attention in April 2004 when it was noticed that the {"Jew} Watch" homepage ranked number 1. From this point on both sides engaged in {"Googlebombing"} (i.e. increasing the number of links pointing to these pages). The results of the study show that most of the links to these pages come from blogs and discussion links and the number of links pointing to these pages in appreciation of their content is extremely small. These findings have implications for ranking algorithms based on link counts and emphasize the huge difference between Web links and citations in the scientific community."

Badania literackie

Problem autorstwa

  • http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Authorship
  • Ofer Arazy, Eleni Stroulia, A utility for estimating the relative contributions of wiki authors, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’09) : . 2009 May 2009. San Jose, California, USA.
  • Marcin Sydow, Jacek Szejda, Dominika Czerniawska, Does a “Renaissance Man” Create Good Wikipedia Articles?, w: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval, red. A. Fred, J. Filipe, Rzym 2014.
  • Katarzyna Baraniak, Marcin Sydow, Jacek Szejda, Dominika Czerniawska. Studying the Role of Diversity in Open Collaboration Network: Experiments on Wikipedia, w: Advances in Network Science, Proceedings, red. A. Wierzbicki, U. Brandes, F. Schweitzer, D. Pedraschi, Wrocław 2016.
  • Nora Miller, Wikipedia and the Disappearing "Author", "ETC: A Review of General Semantics" Jan 2005, Vol. 62 Issue 1.
  • Stephen T. Jordan, The Problem of the Aggregate Author, "International Journal of the Book" 2007, Vol. 4, Issue 4.
  • Florian Hartling, The Digital Author? Authorship in the Digital Era, w: The Author: Who or What is Writing Literature? red. Vanesa Matajc, Gašper Troha, Ljubjana 2009.
  • Margaret Chon, The Romantic Collective Author, "Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law" Summer2012, Vol. 14 Issue 4.
  • A. Swartz. (2006, Sep.) Who writes wikipedia. [Online]. Available: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia (Aaron Swartz w krytyce tezy Jimmy Walesa: większa część treści jest wytworzona przez użytkowników okazjonalnych)
  • http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Power_of_the_few_vs._Wisdom_of_the_crowd:_Wikipedia_and_the_rise_of_the_bourgeoisie
  • Felipe Ortega, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona, Gregorio Robles, On the Inequality of Contributions to Wikipedia, w: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC 2008.
  • Reid Priedhorsky, Jilin Chen, Shyong (Tony) K. Lam, Katherine Panciera, Loren Terveen, John Riedl, Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia, "GROUP '07 Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work" New York 2007. [3]
  • Fabian Flöck, Maribel Acosta, WikiWho: Precise and Efficient Attribution of Authorship of Revisioned Content, w: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web, Nowy Jork 2014. [4]
  • Fabian Flöck, Andriy Rodchenko, Whose article is it anyway? – Detecting authorship distribution in Wikipedia articles over time with WIKIGIN, "Online proceedings of the Wikipedia Academy" 2012/7.
  • Fabian Flöck, Kenan Erdogan, Maribel Acosta, TokTrack: A Complete Token Provenance and Change Tracking Dataset for the English Wikipedia,

Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2017), Montréal 2017.

Krytyka dyskursu

  • Sean Hansen, Nicholas Berente, Kalle Lyytinen Wikipedia, Critical Social Theory, and the Possibility of Rational Discourse The Information Society, Volume 25, Number 1, January 2009 , pp. 38-59 2009

Information systems researchers that apply critical social perspectives frequently emphasize the potential for information technology to serve as a mechanism for increased rationalization, domination, and control. Such theorists often overlook or discount the liberating aspects of information systems. In this study, we apply the ideal of rational discourse developed by Jurgen Habermas to the phenomenon of Wikipedia in an effort to explore empirically the emancipatory potential of information systems. We contend that Wikipedia embodies an approximation of the necessary conditions for rational discourse. While several challenges persist, the example of Wikipedia illustrates the positive potential of information systems in supporting the emergence of more emancipatory forms of communication. The corresponding implications for researchers and design professionals alike are discussed.

Badania kulturowe

  • Sebastian Skolik, Wikipedia jako scena walki politycznej. Strategie politycznych ataków oraz obrony przed upolitycznieniem projektu, w: Media a komunikowanie polityczne, red. M. Sokołowski, Toruń 2009.
  • Dariusz Jemielniak, Życie wirtualnych dzikich Netnografia Wikipedii, największego projektu współtworzonego przez ludzi, Warszawa 2013.
  • Pfeil, Ulrike, Panayiotis Zaphiris, Chee Siang Ang Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of Wikipedia Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), article 5 2006 [361]

[hide] This article explores the relationship between national culture and computer-mediated communication (CMC) in Wikipedia. The articles on the topic game from the French, German, Japanese, and Dutch Wikipedia websites were studied using content analysis methods. Correlations were investigated between patterns of contributions and the four dimensions of cultural influences proposed by Hofstede (Power Distance, Collectivism versus Individualism, Femininity versus Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance). The analysis revealed cultural differences in the style of contributions across the cultures investigated, some of which are correlated with the dimensions identified by Hofstede. These findings suggest that cultural differences that are observed in the physical world also exist in the virtual world.

  • 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.

Abstrakt: Wikipedia advocates a strict 'neutral point of view' (NPOV) policy. However, although originally a U.S-based, English-language phenomenon, the online, user-created encyclopedia now has versions in many languages. This study examines the extent to which content and perspectives vary across cultures by comparing articles about famous persons in the Polish and English editions of Wikipedia. The results of quantitative and qualitative content analyses reveal systematic differences related to the different cultures, histories, and values of Poland and the United States; at the same time, a U.S./English-language advantage is evident throughout. In conclusion, the implications of these findings for the quality and objectivity of Wikipedia as a global repository of knowledge are discussed, and recommendations are advanced for Wikipedia end users and content developers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]


  • Alexander Mehler, Olga Pustylnikov, Nils Diewald, Geography of social ontologies: Testing a variant of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in the context of Wikipedia, Computer Speech & Language. Jul2011, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p716-740. 25p.

Abstrakt: Abstract: In this article, we test a variant of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in the area of complex network theory. This is done by analyzing social ontologies as a new resource for automatic language classification. Our method is to solely explore structural features of social ontologies in order to predict family resemblances of languages used by the corresponding communities to build these ontologies. This approach is based on a reformulation of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in terms of distributed cognition. Starting from a corpus of 160 Wikipedia-based social ontologies, we test our variant of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis by several experiments, and find out that we outperform the corresponding baselines. All in all, the article develops an approach to classify linguistic networks of tens of thousands of vertices by exploring a small range of mathematically well-established topological indices. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Badania międzykulturowe

  • Besiki Stvilia, Abdullah Al-Faraj, Yong Jeong Yi, Issues of cross-contextual information quality evaluation—The case of Arabic, English, and Korean Wikipedias, Library & Information Science Research (07408188). Dec2009, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p232-239. 8p.

Abstrakt: An initial exploration into the issue of information quality evaluation across different cultural and community contexts based on data collected from the Arabic, English, and Korean Wikipedias showed that different Wikipedia communities may have different understandings of and models for quality. It also showed the feasibility of using some article edit-based metrics for automated quality measurement across different Wikipedia contexts. A model for measuring context similarity was developed and used to evaluate the relationship between similarities in sociocultural factors and the understanding of information quality by the three Wikipedia communities. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Lingwistyka

  • Ildikó Kasza, György Várady, Hajnalka Andrikovics, Magdalena Koszarska, Attila Tordai, George L. Scheffer, Adrienn Németh, Gergely Szakács, Balázs Sarkadi, A Practical Approach to Language Complexity: A Wikipedia Case Study, PLoS ONE. Nov2012, Vol. 7 Issue 11, Special section p1-8. 8p.

Abstrakt: In this paper we present statistical analysis of English texts from Wikipedia. We try to address the issue of language complexity empirically by comparing the simple English Wikipedia (Simple) to comparable samples of the main English Wikipedia (Main). Simple is supposed to use a more simplified language with a limited vocabulary, and editors are explicitly requested to follow this guideline, yet in practice the vocabulary richness of both samples are at the same level. Detailed analysis of longer units (n-grams of words and part of speech tags) shows that the language of Simple is less complex than that of Main primarily due to the use of shorter sentences, as opposed to drastically simplified syntax or vocabulary. Comparing the two language varieties by the Gunning readability index supports this conclusion. We also report on the topical dependence of language complexity, that is, that the language is more advanced in conceptual articles compared to person-based (biographical) and object-based articles. Finally, we investigate the relation between conflict and language complexity by analyzing the content of the talk pages associated to controversial and peacefully developing articles, concluding that controversy has the effect of reducing language complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]


  • Marcin Milkowski Automated Building of Error Corpora of Polish Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools, and Applications – State of the Art. PALC 2007, Peter Lang. Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften 2008, 631-639 2008 [488]

[hide]

The paper shows how to automatically develop error corpora out of revision history of documents. The idea is based on a hypothesis that minor edits in documents represent correction of typos, slips of the tongue, grammar, usage and style mistakes. This hypothesis has been confirmed by frequency analysis of revision history of articles in the Polish Wikipedia. Resources such as revision history in Wikipedia, Wikia, and other collaborative editing systems, can be turned into corpora of errors, just by extracting the minor edits. The most theoretically interesting aspect is that the corrections will represent the average speaker's intuitions about usage, and this seems to be a promising way of researching normativity in claims about proper or improper Polish. By processing the revision history, one can gain pairs of segments in the corpus: first representing the error, and the other representing the correction. Moreover, it is relatively easy to tag parts of speech, compare subsequent versions, and prepare a text file containing the resulting corpus.

Metodologia nauki

KRZYSZTOF SUCHECKI, ALKIM ALMILA AKDAG SALAH, EVOLUTION OF WIKIPEDIA'S CATEGORY STRUCTURE, Advances in Complex Systems. Jun2012 Supplement, Vol. 15, p1250068-1-1250068-21. 21p. 3 Abstrakt: Wikipedia, as a social phenomenon of collaborative knowledge creation, has been studied extensively from various points of view. The category system of Wikipedia, introduced in 2004, has attracted relatively little attention. In this study, we focus on the documentation of knowledge, and the transformation of this documentation with time. We take Wikipedia as a sample of knowledge in general and its category system as an aspect of the structure of this knowledge. We investigate the evolution of the category structure of the English Wikipedia from its birth in 2004 to 2008. We treat the category system as if it is a hierarchical Knowledge Organization System, capturing the changes in the distributions of the top categories. We investigate how the clustering of articles, defined by the category system, matches the direct link network between the articles and show how it changes over time. We find the Wikipedia category network mostly stable, but with occasional reorganization. We show that the clustering matches the link structure quite well, except short periods preceding the reorganizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Edukacja

  • Tomás Saorín Pérez, Maria Veronica De Haro y De San Mateo, Juan Antonio Pastor Sánchez, Posibilidades de Wikipedia en la docencia universitaria: elaboración colaborativa de conocimiento, Ibersid. 2011, Vol. 5, p89-97. 9p.

Abstrakt (język angielski):

A guide for Wikipedia student edition as a collaborative active learning activity is presented. Whereas the use of wikis in the classroom is widely documented, the educational possibilities of Wikipedia itself are not so much. We offer a classification of participatory activities suitable for being carried out by the students in the development of the curricular contents. One of the most relevant aspects is the transformation of the critical and distrustful speech towards the Wikipedia in a direct knowledge of its scope, process of production and systems of quality control. In addition, it is a good opportunity to improve a widespread source of information among university undergraduates that has a real impact and for the students to develop a more critical and active use of information sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studia gender

  • Paul Hyman, Gender Bias at Wikipedia?, Communications of the ACM. Oct2011, Vol. 54 Issue 10, p18-18. 1/3p.
  • Benjamin Mako Hill, Aaron Shaw, The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation, PLoS ONE. Jun2013, Vol. 8 Issue 6, p1-5. 5p.
  • Sook Lim, Nahyun Kwon, Gender differences in information behavior concerning Wikipedia, an unorthodox information source?, Library & Information Science Research (07408188). Jul2010, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p212-220. 9p.

Socjologia

  • The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfaker/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
  • Michał Danielewicz, Wikipedia – socjologiczny reportaż z miejsca zdarzeń, "Studia Socjologiczne" (197), z. 2.
  • Jeffrey Stuckman, James Purtilo, Analyzing the wikisphere: Methodology and data to support quantitative wiki research, Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. Aug2011, Vol. 62 Issue 8, p1564-1576. 13p.
  • K. Brad Wray (2009). The Epistemic Cultures of Science and Wikipedia: A Comparison. Episteme, 6, pp 38-51. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000531.
  • Deborah Perron Tollefsen (2009). Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony. Episteme, 6, pp 8-24. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000518.

Zastosowania w nauce

  • Wikpedia cytowana przez wykładowcę MIT: http://video.mit.edu/watch/thomas-youngs-double-slit-experiment-8432/
  • Roy Rosenzweig, Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past, Journal of American History. Jun2006, Vol. 93 Issue 1, p117-146. 30p.
  • Mohamed Ali Hadj Taieb, Mohamed Ben Aouicha, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou, Computing semantic relatedness using Wikipedia features. Knowledge-Based Systems. Sep2013, Vol. 50, p260-278. 19p.

Zastosowania w biznesie

  • Márton Mestyán, Taha Yasseri, János Kertész, Early Prediction of Movie Box Office Success Based on Wikipedia Activity Big Data. PLoS ONE. Aug2013, Vol. 8 Issue 8, p1-8. 8p.

W politologii

  • Adam R. Brown (2011). Wikipedia as a Data Source for Political Scientists: Accuracy and Completeness of Coverage. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, pp 339-343.

" I find that Wikipedia is almost always accurate when a relevant article exists, but errors of omission are extremely frequent."

W medycynie

  • J. Sanz-Valero, Presencia y adecuación de la terminilogía sobre desórdenes nutricionales y trastornos de la conducta alimentaria en las ediciones española e inglesa de la Wikipedia. Revista de Estudios de Comunicacion. may2011, Vol. 16 Issue 30, p13-36. 24p.

W psychiatrii

  • Reavley, N. J.; MacKinnon, A. J.; Morgan, A. J.; Alvarez-Jimenez, M.; Hetrick, S. E.; Killackey, E.; Nelson, B.; Purcell, R.; Yap, M. B. H.; Jorm, A. F.,"Quality of information sources about mental disorders: A comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources". "Psychological Medicine" 2012, vol. 42, issue 8.

("The content was rated by experts according to the following criteria: accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability.(...) Across all topics, Wikipedia was the most highly rated in all domains except readability." (Abstrakt))

Inne pedie

Knowledge in Motion. Problems of Authorship of Wikipedia Articles

Popularity of Wikipedia at the present moment is not accompanied by appropriate knowledge concerning the way it is being created and maintained. This knowledge is however necessary for determining the value of online, free encyclopaedia as a source of information. Below I will try to show basic problem we encounter when trying to analyse how Wikipedia is created and how it influences the reliability of its content. I will also show why “brutal force” of algorithmic methods, so far, dominating among this kind of research, cannot lead us to correct conclusions. For the reasons explained below a research sample will be a group of entries from Polish Wikipedia related to literature and literary studies.

There are several causes, why Wikipedia (the English language version) preserves for already several years its place in global top 10 internet sites. One of them is the size of its content, which significantly exceeds all the existing printed sources of this kind. A feeling of its magnitude is provided by an illustration showing how would English-language Wikipedia look like in print. Its textual content would occupy more than 2400 volumes of Britannica size (all the statistical data has been collected in May 2017, multimedia excluded). These volumes would contain 5.4 million articles and 3.294 billion of words. Polish version of Wikipedia however consists of “only” 1.2 million articles.

Wikipedia contains not only encyclopaedic entries providing information of better or worse quality on almost every topic of human knowledge, but also essays aimed at explanation of internal mechanism of online, open encyclopaedia. As far as the process of its creation is concerned, editors of Wikipedia, Wikipedians, revoke several “ruling metaphors” such as: 1. Garden, fertile soil, and weeding 2. Darwikinism, social darwinism, ecology of ideas 3. Battlefield of ideas 4. Collaborative work of art I am quoting here in literal manner descriptions of activity of Wikipedia, only rearranging them a little, according to growing factor of conscious, subjective, individual contribution. The metaphor of a garden and fertile soil suggests spontaneous, almost natural phenomena with minimal intervention of a human actor, who limits its activity to weeding self-developing “plants” of encyclopaedic entries. Quite similar image is suggested by application a notion of Darwinism to Wikipedia creation. This approach gained its special name: darwikinism. It underlines competitive aspect of birth and evolution of Wikipedia content, very much in a way proposed by Richard Dawkins in his concept of memes that fight each other in order to survive. The “military” facet of the phenomena is developed furtherly in the metaphor of battlefield of ideas. It enforces subjective component and conscious action, though it is intended to deny popular idea of Wikipedia contributors as a community collaborating in a common goal. Finally, a conceptual metaphor of collaborative work of art stresses creative and subjective aspect of the contribution of volunteer that cooperate in a consistent way in the purpose of bringing about a free encyclopaedia. A work of art is located on an opposite end of conceptual spectrum than garden, the latter being self-organizing, natural process, whereas the former suggests predominant role of a human intention, thought, and imagination.

One of the most important features of wiki-text is that, paradoxically enough, one cannot permanently modify content of Wikipedia, but only provide new content. Electronic wiki-text embodies in a perfect way an idea of palimpsest: no text input and saved will ever be lost, all the subsequent versions of every entry are preserved and accessible through interface of timeline, with an exceptions of entries deleted by administrators. Revision history of a Wikipedia article provides information on time of an edit, its author, and its description, such as minor or bigger intervention, as well as the differences between any existing states of an article evolution.

The slogan of Wikipedia says it is “the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit”. Who is anyone, though?

The State of Art

There were several investigations on this topic already done. First of all, there are two main rivalling theories as far as the question of Wikipedia authorship is concerned. According to the first one, formulated by Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales, one of the founders of Wikipedia, most of the content of Wikipedia (Wales refers to the English language version) is generated by a group of the most active users. His methodology is based on counting every single edit the history of a Wikipedia entry consists of. He gives precise figures supplied by software already created by Wikipedia developers for statistical reasons. The data provided by this software states that 73.4% of all the edits are owed to 2% of the most active Wikipedians, which are about 1400 people in absolute numbers. And only 0.7% of the users (524 people) are liable for 50% of all the edits (Swartz, Who writes Wikipedia, 2006). Wales utters he knows this people personally, since they establish the core group of Wikipedia community: The Gang of 500.

This hypothesis become a point of depart for Aaron Swartz, who coined a competitive theory. Swartz start out from an observation that there are various kind of edits and that not everyone contributes to the project in the same extent. One can indicate roughly two types of edits: 1. Uploading a new content 2. “Wikisation” and other kinds of formatting of a content already upload The term wikisation, one of technical word from a dictionary of Wikipedians’ jargon, denotes all the editors’ interventions aimed at adjusting of an entry content to editorial standards of Wikipedia, such dividing the entry into chapters, providing appropriate infoboxes, attributing to the entry suitable set of categories, illustrations, etc. Also such activities as proofreading of an entry or removing vandalisms belong here. Swartz believes that only the first type of edit should be taken into consideration as far as the authorship of the Wikipedia content is concerned.

He illustrates his point on an example of “Alan Alda” entry. He devises two lists of top 10 contributors to this entry: one by number of edits, in Walesian style, and another on according to a number of letter added. In the case of the list based on number of edits, Wales’ conclusions were confirmed: 7 of them were active, registered users of Wikipedia and only 3 were anonymous, i.e. unregistered, therefore occasional contributors. This picture, however, undertook deep change, when the principle of classification was switched to the number of letters added. In this case only 2 top 10 contributors happened to be active Wikipedians with an account. 8 of them were anonymous, unregistered users, who contributed occasionally, one of them edited Wikipedia just once — at the article in question.

Moreover, when apparent exception appeared, i. e. registered users contributing with substantive amount of new text, after closer analysis Swartz found out that it was very often not original content, but translation from another language version of Wikipedia or the text input was simply plagiarized — copied from other websites (Swartz, False Outliers, 2006).

There are, however, several other proposals as far as determining the authorship of Wikipedia is concerned. Priedhorsky and his team introduce a notion of Persistent Word View (PWV), which develops Swartz’ metric based on letters. Namely, not only the amount of letters input is taken into consideration, but also its popularity in term of number of views. The results Priedhorsky and his team achieved seem to support Wales’ hypothesis the Gang of 500: Top 10% of most active editors generated 86% of PWV (as for Feb. 2006, Priedhorsky et alii 2007). However, one can suspect that Priedhorsky methodology based on automatic analysis great bulk of entries cannot exclude cases of translation and plagiarism and telling them apart from original content.

There will be also other cases of possible misrecognizing by this methodology the actual authorship of the content added. For instance, a new entry can be created on the base of a new one, that has been removed. In this case the creator of the new entry will be classified as an author of the content, whereas the authorship content should have been attributed to the authors of the old entry. The old entry has been removed though, and accordingly its revision history. In such a case the real authorship of the entry is impossible to determine (at least for a regular user of Wikipedia; admins may have access to the history of removed entry). This is however not a case of plagiarism, since the content hasn’t been copied from third-part website nor book, but from Wikipedia itself, and no any breaking of copyright has taken place. One could rather call this situation re-use of a content already created. Another possible misattribution of authorship would be paraphrase. This can occur when a contribution of one user is being removed by another (for instance because of usage of non-neutral terms) and replaced by the text of the same meaning, but expressed in other (e.g. more neutral) terms (Gajewski, 2016).

Therefore, so far, one can enumerate four possible cases of authorship misattribution: 1. Translation 2. Plagiarism 3. Re-use 4. Paraphrase In these four cases (and perhaps few others) methodology based on sheer information provided by history of an entry, with no taking into consideration semantics of the content supplied by particular users, sheer algorithmic methods, such as applied by Priedhorsky and his team, Viegas, Kittur, and others will lead to false conclusions. One of the points of this paper is that in determining the authorship of wiki-text there is no shortcut provided by automatic calculation and that a human agent is supposed to “read with understanding” the content, if a goal of possibly reliable attribution of authorship is to be achieved.

There already are several critical and discursive approaches to the question of Wikipedia authorship. Investigators introduced a notion of “disappearing author” (Miller, 2005), “aggregate author” (Jordan, 2007), “digital author” (2009), or “collective author” (2012). Nevertheless, this kind of research are mostly theoretical and lack of “hard” empirical foundation. In research to follow two aforementioned strategies will be joined: critical analysis of discourse and empirical analysis.

One must stress the fact, mentioned many times by researchers of the topic, that the controversy between is not sheer academic dispute, nor ideological argument between partisans of traditional, centralized organizational model and adherents of a new concept of swarm intelligence or a long tail. The solution of this problem would suggest the way the Wikipedia and its interface should evolve: either it should first of all concentrate on building and maintaining strong community of active Wikipedians and advanced Internet users (the Gang of 500 model) or it should rather try to make contribution as simple as possible so as to motivate occasional users to participate (The Anonymous Horde).

There are not many investigation concerning the topic of authorship undertaken on material excerpted from Polish-language Wikipedia. The most prominent Polish Wikipedia investigators exploit text genres in Wikipedia (Anna Tereszkiewicz), or its sociological (Michal Danielewicz), organizational (Dariusz Jemielniak), political and educational (Piotr Konieczny) aspects. Besides, they didn’t focus especially on the case of Polish-language Wikipedia.

Preliminary research (Gajewski, 2016) has been conducted on the sample of 30 random entries of Polish Wikipedia. Its results were mostly negative since articles such selected scarcely exceed more than few sentences and were very often owed to a very limited number of authors, much less than 10. Still, the results seemed to support the theory of Gang of 500, because 86% of author to contribute to the biggest extent were registered, and, what can be surprising at first sight, 7% of them were not even humans, but bots — certainly operated by registered users.

Methodology and Research Sample One of the fundamental methodological problems concerning investigation of the topic of wiki-text authorship is the very characteristics of it, more particularly, its feature that can be called the double face of Wiki-text. There can be indicated two versions of Wikipedia article, what is a consequence of its not being WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) technology, what is the case of, for instance, odt or doc format. Wiki-text presents itself in a different way for a writer and for a reader (it concerns also such documents formats as HTML, or LaTeX). A reader sees its “public” face — output version of Wikipedia article (OVA), “clean” and easy to read, human-friendly. Whereas writer deals what can be called input version of article (IVA) formulated in Wiki Markup Language, readable for humans, but destined to machine, therefore following strict rules of its internal grammar, allowing to code not only sheer text, but also tables, boxes, images, and other multimedia, articles categorisation etc., i.e. all the data necessary for Media Wiki software Wikipedia is operating on. IVA is easy to analyse and determinate, since all the statistical Wikipedia software, such as this counting editions, works on it. However, it includes a lot of technical commands, which are necessary for correct functioning of Wikipedia, but has no semantic value, as far as the content of an entry is concerned, they cannot be “seen” by a reader, since their addressee is machine. What the reader actually see is OVA, but it is not always evident, where to put a line between IVA and OVA. One can reject all the character and word translated in look of an entry, such as styles. But decision became more difficult as far as it concerns diagrams, schemes, or tables. Sometimes just few words in IVA are automatically translated into huge information box (infobox) containing several labels. This is a case of templates and this technology is called transclusion in Wiki jargon. Who is liable for this kind of content, that undoubtedly conveys semantics and meaning, therefore should be counted, according to chosen methodology? The creator(s) of the template or the one who used it?

As far as a research sample is concerned, drawing conclusions from previous research this time I decided to follow history of revisions of 10 intentionally chosen entries, limited, however, to the topic of literary studies and literature, such as: “teoria literatury”, “literature”, “literaturoznawstwo”, “Adam Mickiewicz”, “Franz Kafka”, “świat przedstawiony”, “śmierć autora”, “strumień świadomosci”, “struktura dziela literackiego”, and “podmiot czynności twórczych”.

Results When tracing history of revision of a developed Wikipedia entry, only few of them are really “visible” and introduces substantial changes (amplification, abridgement, correction). Overwhelming majority of revisions consists of technical modifications, necessary to keep the entry integrated with the whole internal structure of Wikipedia. They have mostly technical, syntactic, and not semantic and language character. Therefore, I am calling a substantial change simply an Important Revision (IR). The longer a history of an entry is, the lesser number of Important Revisions it contains. The history of an entry “Franz Kafka” consists of 343 revisions (made during 5094 days by 184 editors) of which only 11 (3%) entail modifications “visible” for a reader. Meanwhile an entry “podmiot czynności twórczych”, significantly shorter than “Franz Kafka”, evaluated through only 7 revision stages (during its 3565-days history, developed by 4 editors) among which 2 (29%) can be classified as important, in proposed terminology.

The analysis of revisions history of entries enumerated above has been undertaken and in its results seven types of Important Revisions emerged: 1. Amplification 2. Abridgement 3. Correction 4. Rearrangement 5. Portioning 6. Vandalism 7. Revert Amplification, which is the only genuinely creative intervention, since involves uploading new textual content, can be contrasted with abridgement, i.e. removing redundant (according to an editor) part of an entry. Correction differs from both amplification and abridgement to that extent that it doesn’t imply neither of them, but basically substitution of an old, faulty content with a new one. In this case “brutal” algorithmic investigation would lead to obviously false results: an editor who corrected a part of entry, i. e. paraphrased its already existing part, would be counted as an author of this piece of text.

Rearrangement (reorganization of internal structure of an article) and portioning (simple division of an article into chapters) also should be categorized rather as a redaction of an entry than as its creation. Still, they imply a substantial modification of an entry.

Vandalism by no means can be classified as a creative contribution, it is its antitype, but in other way that abridgement. Whereas the latter consists of simply removing a part of an entry, typical example of vandalism is improper amplification, i. e. inclusion into a body of the entry a text unrelated to it, loosely related so as to not to fit to encyclopaedic standards, or nonsense (often breaking language taboo). Revert is a type of edit specific for MediaWiki software, the engine of Wikipedia, that allows returning to the previous version of an entry with one click.

To illustrate the enumeration presented above I will give some typical examples of few of listed types of entry revision. One can suppose that Wikipedia entry is growing slowly, as a plant, sentence after sentence. It is true, but only partial. Very often entries are “exploding” and large amount of text is added at once. The first version of “Franz Kafka” entry (8th February 2003, an unregistered, anonymous author) is very concise: “Franz Kafka was born in 1883 and died 41 years later”. The second Important Revision of the entry, made by the same unregistered author half an hour later was quite different: “Franz Kafka (19883-1924) is considered as a one of the most outstanding authors of twentieth century”. The third Important revision, performed two minutes later (sic!) by a registered user, is enriched by few new facts, such as place of birth (Prague), the nationality (Austrian, sic!) and a fact of mostly post-moral influence on literature. Also three of Kafka’s novels are listed. Still the entry consists of only one sentence and a three elements list. For the next Important Revision Wikipedia users were supposed to wait more than one and half year. An anonymous editor provided three new paragraphs. Week later a registered user wrote the whole entry again and uploaded it at one edit (about 7000 chars), describing Kafka’s life (in four subchapters), his works (again four paragraphs), secondary bibliography, and Internet resources.

This preliminary research doesn’t pretend to give a solution of the problem of Wikipedia authorship, but shows why the investigation hitherto were not sufficient and aims at indicate a direction of explorations.

Literatura

  1. Marshall Poe, The Hive, "The Atlantic Monthly" September 2006, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/the-hive/305118
  2. http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html
  3. Sébastien Blondeel, Wikipédia. Comprendre et participer, Paris 2006.
  4. Michel Campeanu, Mythes et vampires [Texte imprimé] : compilation-essai basé sur les références Wikipédia, Suresnes 2015.
  5. Guy Delsaut, Utiliser Wikipédia comme source d'information fiable, Bois-Guillaume 2016.
  6. Marc Foglia et alii, Wikipédia : média de la connaissance démocratique ? : quand le citoyen lambda devient encyclopédiste, Limoges 2008.
  7. Marc Foglia, Wikipédia entre connaissqnce et démocratie, w: Martine Groult, Les Encyclopédies, Construction et circulqtion du savoir de l'antiquité à Wikipédia, Paris 2011.
  8. Pierre Gourdain et alii, La Révolution Wikipédia, Paris 2007.
  9. Justyna Hofmokl, Wikipedia jako internetowe dobro wspólne - studium przypadku, w: jej, Internet jako dobro wspólne, Warszawa 2008.
  10. Justyna Hofmokl, Alek Tarkowski, Wikipedia - pospolite ruszenie encyklopedystów. Największa encyklopedia na świecie, "EBIB" Nr 3/2006 (73), http://www.ebib.info/2006/73/hofmokl_tarkowski.php. ("wielkie laboratorium społecznego zaangażowania, które do tej pory kojarzyło się z działalnością polityczną lub społeczna")
  11. Dariusz Jemielniak, Życie wirtualnych dzikich. Netnografia Wikipedii, największego projektu współtworzonego przez ludzi, Warszawa 2013.
  12. Dariusz Jemielniak, Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia, Stanford: Stanford University Press 2014.
  13. Paul Lewinson, Nowe nowe media, przeł. M. Zawadzka, Kraków 2010.
  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_According_to_Wikipedia
  15. Le miracle Wikipedia - Frédéric Kaplan, Nicolas Nova
  16. ANDERSEN, Ch. „Pre-Filters” vs. „Post-Filters”. In The Long Tail. A public diary on the way to a book [on-line
  17. Ward Cunningham, Correspondence on the Etymology of Wiki, 2003, http://c2.com/doc/etymology.html.
  18. Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution: How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia, 2009
  19. Graham Lawton, Open Source – wielka promocja rozdawania, 2003, przekład był 1. w Polsce wzmianką o Wikipedii
  20. Jörn Schulz, Wikipedia schreiben [Texte imprimé] : eine Online-Offline-Ethnografie über Wikipedianer, Saarbrücken 2017.
  21. Dan O'Sullivan, Wikipedia : a new community of practice?, Farnham, England 2009.
  22. Wikipédia, objet scientifique non identifié
  23. Wikipedia und Geschichtswissenschaft, red. Thomas Wozniak, Jürgen Nemitz, Uwe Rohwedder, Berlin 2015.
  24. Halfaker, Geiger, Morgan, Riedl 2009; Lih, 2009; O'Sullivan 2009;
  25. Niederer and Dijck, 2011;
  26. Yasseri, Sumi, Rung, Kornai & Kertesz, 2012;
  27. Nathaniel Tkacz, Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, Chicago 2015.
  28. Nathaniel Tkacz, Geert Lovink (red.) Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader 2011
  29. Thompson, 2016
Źródło: „http://emet.hekko24.pl/lp/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=1850”