|
|
| (Nie pokazano 179 pośrednich wersji utworzonych przez tego samego użytkownika) |
| Linia 1: |
Linia 1: |
| − | # Marshall Poe, The Hive, "The Atlantic Monthly" September 2006, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/the-hive/305118
| |
| − | # http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html
| |
| − | # Wiki-Wiki - imię tytułowej postaci opowiadania napisanego przez Martina Edena
| |
| − | # Justyna Hofmokl, Wikipedia jako internetowe dobro wspólne - studium przypadku, w: jej, Internet jako dobro wspólne, Warszawa 2008.
| |
| − | # 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 społeczn")
| |
| − | # Dariusz Jemielniak, Życie wirtualnych dzikich. Netnografia Wikipedii, największego projektu współtworzonego przez ludzi, Warszawa 2013.
| |
| − | # Paul Lewinson, Nowe nowe media, przeł. M. Zawadzka, Kraków 2010.
| |
| − | # http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_According_to_Wikipedia
| |
| − | # ANDERSEN, Ch. „Pre-Filters” vs. „Post-Filters”. In The Long Tail. A public diary on the way to a book [on-line
| |
| − | # Jim Giles, Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, "Nature" 438 (15 December 2005)
| |
| − | # Ward Cunningham, Correspondence on the Etymology of Wiki, 2003, http://c2.com/doc/etymology.html.
| |
| − | # Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution: How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia, 2009
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Zagadnienia==
| |
| − | słowa, dla których Wikipedia NIE jest wypozycjonowana
| |
| | # motywacja: grywalizacja - homo ludens | | # motywacja: grywalizacja - homo ludens |
| | + | # Wiki-Wiki - imię tytułowej postaci opowiadania napisanego przez Martina Edena |
| | + | # Wikpedia cytowana przez wykładowcę MIT: http://video.mit.edu/watch/thomas-youngs-double-slit-experiment-8432/ |
| | + | # Wikipedisten gegen Wikipedianer. https://www.hist.net/archives/4359 |
| | | | |
| − | ==Bibliografie== | + | ==Dziedziny wikipedystyki== |
| − | * Portal badawczy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index | + | * [[Wiarygodność Wikipedii]] |
| − | * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Resources (bibliografia źródeł naukowych i narzędzi) | + | * [[Stronniczość Wikipedii]] (bias) |
| − | * http://wikilit.referata.com/ (prace naukowe nt. wikipedii) | + | * [[Autorstwo Wikipedii]] |
| − | * http://wikipapers.referata.com/ (prace naukowe nt. wiki w ogólności)
| + | |
| − | * https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_w_publikacjach_naukowych
| + | |
| | | | |
| | + | ==Jak dodano wiki== |
| | + | * [Nupedia-l] Let's make a wiki https://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html |
| | | | |
| | ==Dane badawcze== | | ==Dane badawcze== |
| − | * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Data
| + | # https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Data |
| | | | |
| − | == Badania Wikipedii == | + | ==Bibliografie== |
| − | * Praca licencjacka, 2004: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Piotr_Spigiel_-_Praca_licencjacka
| + | # Portal badawczy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index |
| − | === Problem reklam ===
| + | # https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Resources (bibliografia źródeł naukowych i narzędzi) |
| − | * Marvin Oppong, Versteckte Werbung bei Wikipedia, "Deutsche Welle", http://www.dw.com/de/versteckte-werbung-bei-wikipedia/a-17389658 [[File:Werbung wikipedia.png|50px]]
| + | # http://wikilit.referata.com/ (prace naukowe nt. wikipedii) |
| | + | # http://wikipapers.referata.com/ (prace naukowe nt. wiki w ogólności) |
| | + | # https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_w_publikacjach_naukowych |
| | | | |
| − | === Historia idei wiki=== | + | ==Bibliografia ogólna== |
| − | * 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.
| + | ===Książki=== |
| | + | # Sébastien Blondeel, Wikipédia. Comprendre et participer, Paris 2006. |
| | + | # Michel Campeanu, Mythes et vampires [Texte imprimé] : compilation-essai basé sur les références Wikipédia, Suresnes 2015. |
| | + | # Guy Delsaut, Utiliser Wikipédia comme source d'information fiable, Bois-Guillaume 2016. |
| | + | # Ziko van Dijkmar, Wikis und die Wikipedia verstehen: Eine Einführung, transcript Verlag 2021. |
| | + | # Meike Faflik, Wikipedia und ihre Nutzer: zum Bildungswert der Online-Enzyklopädie. Marburg: Tectum-Verl, 2007. |
| | + | # Marc Foglia et alii, Wikipédia : média de la connaissance démocratique ? : quand le citoyen lambda devient encyclopédiste, Limoges 2008. |
| | + | # Fuchs, Christian: Soziale Medien und kritische Theorie. Eine Einführung, 2. vollständig überarbeitete Auflage, München 2021. |
| | + | # Pierre Gourdain et alii, La Révolution Wikipédia, Paris 2007. |
| | + | # Dariusz Jemielniak, Życie wirtualnych dzikich. Netnografia Wikipedii, największego projektu współtworzonego przez ludzi, Warszawa 2013. |
| | + | # Dariusz Jemielniak, Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia, Stanford: Stanford University Press 2014. |
| | + | # Frédéric Kaplan, Nicolas Nova, Le miracle Wikipedia, 2016. |
| | + | # Paul Lewinson, Nowe nowe media, przeł. M. Zawadzka, Kraków 2010. |
| | + | # Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution: How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia, 2009 |
| | + | # Daniela Pscheida: Das Wikipedia-Universum. Wie das Internet unsere Wissenskultur verändert 2010 |
| | + | # Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, The MIT Press 2010. |
| | + | # Pavel Richter, Die Wikipedia-Story: Biografie eines Weltwunders, Campus Verlag |
| | + | # Günter Schuler, Wikipedia inside: die Online-Enzyklopädie und ihre Community. Münster: Unrast-Verl, 2007 |
| | + | # Jörn Schulz, Wikipedia schreiben [Texte imprimé] : eine Online-Offline-Ethnografie über Wikipedianer, Saarbrücken 2017. |
| | + | # Dan O'Sullivan, Wikipedia : a new community of practice?, Farnham, England 2009. |
| | + | # Don Tapscott, Anthony D. Williams, Wikinomics. Die Revolution im Netz, Hanser, München 2007. |
| | + | # Anna Tereszkiewicz, Genre Analysis of Online Encyclopedias: The Case of Wikipedia, 2013 |
| | + | # Nathaniel Tkacz, Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, Chicago 2015. |
| | + | # Nathaniel Tkacz, Geert Lovink (red.) Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader 2011 |
| | + | # Wikipedia und Geschichtswissenschaft, red. Thomas Wozniak, Jürgen Nemitz, Uwe Rohwedder, Berlin 2015. |
| | | | |
| − | [hide]
| + | ===Artykuły=== |
| − | 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.
| + | # Ch. Andersen, „Pre-Filters” vs. „Post-Filters”. In The Long Tail. A public diary on the way to a book [on-line |
| − | | + | # Judit Bar-Ilan, 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] |
| − | * Sanja Perovic, The Intelligible as a New World? Wikipedia versus the Eighteenth-Century Encyclopéédie. Paragraph. Mar2011, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p12-29. 18p.
| + | # Lionel Barbe, Louise Merzeau et Valérie Schafer (dir.), Wikipédia, objet scientifique non identifié, Nanterre 2021 https://books.openedition.org/pupo/4089 |
| − | | + | # K. Brad Wray (2009). The Epistemic Cultures of Science and Wikipedia: A Comparison. Episteme, 6, pp 38-51. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000531. |
| − | 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]
| + | #* "The people contributing do not ground their claims on their reputations as knowers. In fact, they stand to lose nothing if and when their contributions are found to be misleading or false. And the immediacy of the medium encourages gossip and jokes." (s. 47) |
| − | | + | # 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. |
| − | === Studia nad Zagładą ===
| + | #*" I find that Wikipedia is almost always accurate when a relevant article exists, but errors of omission are extremely frequent." |
| − | | + | # Ward Cunningham, Correspondence on the Etymology of Wiki, 2003, http://c2.com/doc/etymology.html. |
| − | * 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]
| + | # Michał Danielewicz, Wikipedia – socjologiczny reportaż z miejsca zdarzeń, "Studia Socjologiczne" (197), z. 2. |
| − | | + | # Marc Foglia, Wikipédia entre connaissqnce et démocratie, w: Martine Groult, Les Encyclopédies, Construction et circulqtion du savoir de l'antiquité à Wikipédia, Paris 2011. |
| − | | + | # Aaron Halfaker, R. Stuart Geiger, Morgan, Riedl, The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline, Volume 57, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212469 |
| − | 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."
| + | # Justyna Hofmokl, Wikipedia jako internetowe dobro wspólne - studium przypadku, w: jej, Internet jako dobro wspólne, Warszawa 2008. |
| − | | + | # 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] |
| − | === Badania literackie ===
| + | #* "wielkie laboratorium społecznego zaangażowania, które do tej pory kojarzyło się z działalnością polityczną lub społeczna" |
| − | * https://pbn.nauka.gov.pl/works/428748
| + | # 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 |
| − | ==== Problem autorstwa ====
| + | # 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. |
| − | * http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Authorship
| + | # Graham Lawton, Open Source – wielka promocja rozdawania, 2003, przekład był 1. w Polsce wzmianką o Wikipedii |
| − | * 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.
| + | # Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia, 2009 |
| − | * 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.
| + | # 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. |
| − | | + | # 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. |
| − | * Nora Miller, Wikipedia and the Disappearing "Author", "ETC: A Review of General Semantics" Jan 2005, Vol. 62 Issue 1. | + | # 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 |
| − | * Stephen T. Jordan, The Problem of the Aggregate Author, "International Journal of the Book" 2007, Vol. 4, Issue 4.
| + | # Sabine Niederer, José van Dijck (2011) Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a sociotechnical system. New Media & Society 12(8) https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365297 |
| − | * 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.
| + | # Marvin Oppong, Versteckte Werbung bei Wikipedia, "Deutsche Welle", http://www.dw.com/de/versteckte-werbung-bei-wikipedia/a-17389658 [File:Werbung wikipedia.png] (Problem reklam ) |
| − | * Margaret Chon, The Romantic Collective Author, "Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law" Summer2012, Vol. 14 Issue 4.
| + | # C. Pentzold, S. Seidenglanz, (2006) Foucault@ Wiki: first steps towards a conceptual framework for the analysis of Wiki discourses. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis, 59-68. |
| − | * 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)
| + | # Sanja Perovic, The Intelligible as a New World? Wikipedia versus the Eighteenth-Century Encyclopéédie. Paragraph. Mar2011, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p12-29. 18p. |
| − | * http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Power_of_the_few_vs._Wisdom_of_the_crowd:_Wikipedia_and_the_rise_of_the_bourgeoisie
| + | # Ulrike Pfeil, Panayiotis Zaphiris, Chee Siang Ang Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of Wikipedia Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), article 5 2006 [361] |
| − | * 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.
| + | # Marshall Poe, The Hive, "The Atlantic Monthly" September 2006, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/the-hive/305118 |
| − | * 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. [http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~reid/papers/group282-priedhorsky.pdf] | + | # N. J. Reavley; 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. |
| − | * Fabian Flöck, Maribel Acosta, WikiWho: Precise and Efficient Attribution of Authorship of Revisioned Content, "World Wide Web Conference" New York 2014.[http://www.aifb.kit.edu/images/1/1f/Www2014_submission_715_(9).pdf]
| + | #* "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." |
| − | | + | # 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. |
| − | ====Abstrakty====
| + | # 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. |
| − | | + | # 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. |
| − | * Hartling, F The Digital Author?: Authorship in the Digital Era PRIMERJALNA KNJIZEVNOST 2009
| + | # 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. |
| − | [hide]
| + | # Piotr Spigiel, Wikipedia – wolna encyklopedia. Motywacja do uczestnictwa w projekcie, Wikipedia jako grupa społeczna, Wrocław 2004 [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Piotr_Spigiel_-_Praca_licencjacka] |
| − | Since the birth of the World Wide Web as the most,successful application of the Internet there have been hopes of literary theorists {(Landow,} Bolter) that the new digital media would. finally allow for the death of the author" and the birth of the "writing reader". The hypertext as new genre of text seemed to be powerful enough to fulfill the older hopes of the poststructuralists {(Barthes} Foucault). Although these euphoric hopes have been abandoned by literary theory for the most part the Internet in the actual literary production still seems to have the power to be an "author-less" media in principle: In the oft-discussed encyclopaedia {"Wikipedia"} the collaborative written text supposedly is more important than the authors. literary experiments in the digital media are exploring how text can be written just by text-algorithms. These projects finally do not need writers anymore; they are using data taken from search engines. But this somewhat naive idea of an "authorless" digital media clearly call be reined. First the author has been revived by the new media and continues to thrive a within it. Second in contrast to the prediction of huge "authorless" collaborative text-production in online journalism it is hard to find any collaborative works of literature. Third even with collaborative projects or "codeworks" the function of an author does riot disappear but is spread over different persons which can even lead to a "dissociated" authorship. The author cannot disappear or "die" in the Internet because its characteristics will not allow this to happen. Therefore the Internet does not stand for the "death" of the author; it actually appears to be a fountain of youth for literary authorship instead. These findings are discussed using recent experiments with authorship in digital literature."
| + | # 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. |
| − | | + | # Richard Stallman, The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource https://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html |
| − | | + | # 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. |
| − | * Margaret Chon, The Romantic Collective Author. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law. Summer2012, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p829-849. 21p.
| + | # 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. |
| − | | + | # Krzysztof Suchecki, Alkim Almila Akdag Salah, Evolution Of Wikipedia's Category Structure, Advances In Complex Systems, 2012, Jun., Supplement, Vol. 15 |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | # Dan O'Sullivan, Wikipedia. A New Community of Practice?, 2009; |
| − | Although the romantic collective author is a much more elusive creature than its romantic individual counterpart, it can be discerned amidst the proliferation of expression on the Internet. This Article first outlines the ways in which the romantic author effect operates through both its genius and its arbiter prongs within collaborative authorship practices in digital networks. It next turns to scientific collaboration, where this author effect is attenuated, to assess whether scientific authorship practices might contribute to a more realistic and less romantic understanding of expressive authorship practices. A subsequent case study of collaborative digital authorship by Wikipedia contributors uncovers some of the underlying social processes giving rise to Wikipedia's position of collective genius and authority. Analysis of these collaborative authorship processes reveals implicit certification functions, which can obscure various biases that should be addressed in order to shape a more inclusive and reliable knowledge environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
| + | # 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. |
| − | | + | # Gareth Thompson, Public relations interactions with Wikipedia,"Journal of Communication Management" February 2016, 20(1):4-20 doi: 10.1108/JCOM-12-2014-0083 |
| − | * Nora Miller, WIKIPEDIA AND THE DISAPPEARING "AUTHOR", ETC: A Review of General Semantics. Jan2005, Vol. 62 Issue 1, p37-40. 4p.
| + | # Deborah Perron Tollefsen (2009). Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony. Episteme, 6, pp 8-24. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000518. |
| − | | + | # Taha Yasseri, Robert Sumi, András Rung, András Kornai, János Kertész, Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia, June 20, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038869 |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | Focuses on the information sharing and collaborative writing capability provided by the Web site wiki for its readers. Reasons behind the emergence of copyright laws; Information on how the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia works; Comments on collaborative writing from a general semantics perspective.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Stephen T. Jordan, The Problem of the Aggregate Author, International Journal of the Book. 2007, Vol. 4 Issue 4, p161-167. 7p.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | This essay examines controversies surrounding content aggregation communities that permit anonymous contribution and editing by members (such as Wikipedia) in the context of historical representations of authorship and contemporary scholarship about the social construction of situated knowledge. I argue that neither the materially-focused portraits of the author offered in great literary statements and by noted book historians, which assume a discrete, sentient being with special talents (Wordsworth 1800, Eisenstein 1979, Woodmansee 1984), nor the post-structural theories that replace the individual author with a diffuse "author function" defined by textual and cultural conventions (Barthes 1968, Foucault 1970), nor the influential studies of collaborative writing practice in rhetoric and composition studies (Lunsford/Ede 1983, 1995), adequately account for the phenomenon of ongoing contribution to content aggregation sites. Bringing together the discourses of history, linguistics and rhetoricial studies, I theorize a new category-which I name "aggregate authorship"-by speculating about how such an interdisciplinary concept might shape ongoing conversations about the essential mechanisms of authorship on Wikipedia as they affect our understanding of how knowledge is made and circulated online.[ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | The article discusses a study by Shyong K. Lam of the University of Minnesota, presented in the paper "WP: Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" and the video "Research Proves Gender Imbalance on Wikipedia," which found that fewer women edit the online encyclopedia Wikipedia than men.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Opt-in surveys are the most widespread method used to study participation in online communities, but produce biased results in the absence of adjustments for non-response. A 2008 survey conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation and United Nations University at Maastricht is the source of a frequently cited statistic that less than 13% of Wikipedia contributors are female. However, the same study suggested that only 39.9% of Wikipedia readers in the US were female – a finding contradicted by a representative survey of American adults by the Pew Research Center conducted less than two months later. Combining these two datasets through an application and extension of a propensity score estimation technique used to model survey non-response bias, we construct revised estimates, contingent on explicit assumptions, for several of the Wikimedia Foundation and United Nations University at Maastricht claims about Wikipedia editors. We estimate that the proportion of female US adult editors was 27.5% higher than the original study reported (22.7%, versus 17.8%), and that the total proportion of female editors was 26.8% higher (16.1%, versus 12.7%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This study examined gender differences in information behavior concerning Wikipedia. Data were collected using a Web survey in spring 2008. The study used a convenient sample that consisted of students who had taken an introductory undergraduate course at a large public university in the Midwestern United States. A total of 134 out of 409 students participated in the study. As information consumers, male students used Wikipedia more frequently than their female counterparts did. With respect to the purposes of Wikipedia use, male students used Wikipedia for entertainment or idle reading more than their female counterparts, while there were no gender differences regarding Wikipedia use for other purposes. Male students were more likely to discount the risks involved when using Wikipedia information compared to their female counterparts. Furthermore, male students had higher ratings than female students regarding most aspects of Wikipedia, including outcome expectations, perceptions about its information quality, belief in the Wikipedia project itself, emotional states while using Wikipedia, confidence in evaluating information quality, and further exploration. Finally, there was no gender difference regarding the number of years of Wikipedia use. However, male students reported having more positive experiences with the information quality of Wikipedia than their female counterparts. Overall, the findings of this study were consistent with those of previous studies concerning gender. Given the acknowledgment of the knowledge value of Wikipedia in recent literature, it seems that there are more advantages to using Wikipedia than there are disadvantages. The current study shows that male students seem to enjoy such benefits more than female students and may have more opportunities to develop their information literacy skills than female students by actively using Wikipedia. This suggests that educators need to encourage female students in particular to explore Wikipedia strategically as an initial information source so that they can develop their information literacy skills for unconventional sources. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Socjologia ===
| + | |
| − | * 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | Owing to the inherent difficulty in obtaining experimental data from wikis, past quantitative wiki research has largely focused on Wikipedia, limiting the ability to generalize such research. To facilitate the analysis of wikis other than Wikipedia, we developed WikiCrawler, a tool that automatically gathers research data from public wikis without supervision. We then built a corpus of 151 wikis, which we have made publicly available. Our analysis indicated that these wikis display signs of collaborative authorship, validating them as objects of study.We then performed an initial analysis of the corpus and discovered some similarities with Wikipedia, such as users contributing at unequal rates.We also analyzed distributions of edits across pages and users, resulting in data which can motivate or verify mathematical models of behavior on wikis. By providing data collection tools and a corpus of already-collected data, we have completed an important first step for investigations that analyze user behavior, establish measurement baselines for wiki evaluation, and generalize Wikipedia research by testing hypotheses across many wikis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * K. Brad Wray (2009). The Epistemic Cultures of Science and Wikipedia: A Comparison. Episteme, 6, pp 38-51. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000531.
| + | |
| − | ABSTRACT
| + | |
| − | I compare the epistemic culture of Wikipedia with the epistemic culture of science, with special attention to the culture of collaborative research in science. The two cultures differ markedly with respect to (1) the knowledge produced, (2) who produces the knowledge, and (3) the processes by which knowledge is produced. Wikipedia has created a community of inquirers that are governed by norms very different from those that govern scientists. Those who contribute to Wikipedia do not ground their claims on their reputations as knowers, for they stand to lose nothing if and when their contributions are found to be misleading or false. And the immediacy of the medium encourages gossip and jokes. Hence, though we have some reason to believe that an invisible hand aids scientists in realizing their epistemic goals, we cannot ground our confidence in what is reported on Wikipedia on the fact that an invisible hand ensures quality. Nor is the information on Wikipedia aptly justified in a manner similar to the way testimony can be justified.
| + | |
| − | * Deborah Perron Tollefsen (2009). Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony. Episteme, 6, pp 8-24. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000518.
| + | |
| − | ABSTRACT
| + | |
| − | In “Group Testimony” (2007) I argued that the testimony of a group cannot be understood (or at least cannot always be understood) in a summative fashion; as the testimony of some or all of the group members. In some cases, it is the group itself that testifies. I also argued that one could extend standard reductionist accounts of the justification of testimonial belief to the case of testimonial belief formed on the basis of group testimony. In this paper, I explore the issue of group testimony in greater detail by focusing on one putative source of testimony, that of Wikipedia. My aim is to the answer the following questions: Is Wikipedia a source of testimony? And if so, what is the nature of that source? Are we to understand Wikipedia entries as a collection of testimonial statements made by individuals, some subset of individuals, or is Wikipedia itself (the organization or the Wikipedia community) the entity that testifies? If Wikipedia itself is a source of testimony, what resources do we have for assessing the trustworthiness of such an unusual epistemic source? In answering these questions I hope to further elucidate the nature of collective epistemic agency (Tollefsen 2006), of which group testimony is a paradigm example.
| + | |
| − | When a mans Discourse begineth…at some saying of another, of whose ability to know the truth, and of whose honesty in not deceiving, he doubteth not; and then the Discourse is not so much concerning the Thing, as the Person; and the Resolution is called Beleefe, and Faith: Faith in the man. (1651/1991, Ch. 7; p. 48)
| + | |
| − | Deborah Perron Tollefsen is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Memphis. Her areas of research include social epistemology, feminist epistemology, and collective intentionality.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Lawrence M. Sanger (2009). The Fate of Expertise after Wikipedia. Episteme, 6, pp 52-73.
| + | |
| − | ABSTRACT
| + | |
| − | Wikipedia has challenged traditional notions about the roles of experts in the Internet Age. Section 1 sets up a paradox. Wikipedia is a striking popular success, and yet its success can be attributed to the fact that it is wide open and bottom-up. How can such a successful knowledge project disdain expertise? Section 2 discusses the thesis that if Wikipedia could be shown by an excellent survey of experts to be fantastically reliable, then experts would not need to be granted positions of special authority. But, among other problems, this thesis is self-stultifying. Section 3 explores a couple ways in which egalitarian online communities might challenge the occupational roles or the epistemic leadership roles of experts. There is little support for the notion that the distinctive occupations that require expertise are being undermined. It is also implausible that Wikipedia and its like might take over the epistemic leadership roles of experts. Section 4 argues that a main reason that Wikipedia’s articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily. 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. Moreover, Wikipedia’s commitment to anonymity further drives off good contributors. Generally, some decisionmaking role for experts is not just consistent with online knowledge communities being open and bottom-up, it is recommended as well.
| + | |
| − | Lawrence M. Sanger earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 2000 from Ohio State University and went on to co-found Wikipedia in 2001 and Citizendium in 2006. He has been associated with a variety of other knowledge-related projects online. His areas of concentration were Epistemology and Early Modern Philosophy, and he continues to have broad interests in philosophy and writes about philosophical issues connected to the Internet and online communities.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | The article presents information on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that contains articles about history. Wikipedia allows Internet users to freely read and use articles, thus, making it the most significant application of the principles of the free and open-source software movement to the world of cultural production. Astonishingly, Wikipedia has become widely read and cited, with more than a million people a day visiting the site. The article also offers information on other Web-based encyclopedias that were developed before Wikipedia.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * 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.
| + | |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | Abstract: Measuring semantic relatedness is a critical task in many domains such as psychology, biology, linguistics, cognitive science and artificial intelligence. In this paper, we propose a novel system for computing semantic relatedness between words. Recent approaches have exploited Wikipedia as a huge semantic resource that showed good performances. Therefore, we utilized the Wikipedia features (articles, categories, Wikipedia category graph and redirection) in a system combining this Wikipedia semantic information in its different components. The approach is preceded by a pre-processing step to provide for each category pertaining to the Wikipedia category graph a semantic description vector including the weights of stems extracted from articles assigned to the target category. Next, for each candidate word, we collect its categories set using an algorithm for categories extraction from the Wikipedia category graph. Then, we compute the semantic relatedness degree using existing vector similarity metrics (Dice, Overlap and Cosine) and a new proposed metric that performed well as cosine formula. The basic system is followed by a set of modules in order to exploit Wikipedia features to quantify better as possible the semantic relatedness between words. We evaluate our measure based on two tasks: comparison with human judgments using five datasets and a specific application “solving choice problem”. Our result system shows a good performance and outperforms sometimes ESA (Explicit Semantic Analysis) and TSA (Temporal Semantic Analysis) approaches.[Copyright &y& Elsevier]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Zastosowania w biznesie ===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Early Prediction of Movie Box Office Success Based on Wikipedia Activity Big Data.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Autorzy:
| + | |
| − | Márton Mestyán, Taha Yasseri, János Kertész, PLoS ONE. Aug2013, Vol. 8 Issue 8, p1-8. 8p.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Abstrakt:
| + | |
| − | Use of socially generated “big data” to access information about collective states of the minds in human societies has become a new paradigm in the emerging field of computational social science. A natural application of this would be the prediction of the society's reaction to a new product in the sense of popularity and adoption rate. However, bridging the gap between “real time monitoring” and “early predicting” remains a big challenge. Here we report on an endeavor to build a minimalistic predictive model for the financial success of movies based on collective activity data of online users. We show that the popularity of a movie can be predicted much before its release by measuring and analyzing the activity level of editors and viewers of the corresponding entry to the movie in Wikipedia, the well-known online encyclopedia.[ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Wiarygodność Wikipedii w nauce ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Objective: To determine the presence and to assess the adequacy of the nutritional and eating disorders descriptors in the English and Spanish Wikipedia. Method: The terms were obtained from the thesaurus: Medical Subject Headings (MESH) and APA-Terms. The existence of the terms was confirmed accessing to the Spanish and English editions of Wikipedia via the Internet (http://es.wikipedia.org/). The last date for consultation and calculations was June 8, 2012. Results: A total of 89 descriptors were identified, being 56 (62.92%) of them as terms in the Wikipedia: 42 (47.19%) in the Spanish edition and 56 (62.92%) in English. Significant differences between the two editions were assessed (chi-square = 9.41, df= 1, P <0.001). At the same time, differences between both editions according to the number of references in each term were observed (t-Student = -2,43; gl = 84,87; p = 0,017). However, there were not differences in the status of information being update/obsolete, neither in the number of queries. Conclusions: the entries related to nutritional and eating disorders terms have not yet reached an optimum level. Differences between english and spanish Wikipedia editions are more related to criteria of content principles (term existence) than adequacy of information. The English edition of Wikipedia has a more scientific endorsement, through the references cited, than the Spanish edition.[ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === 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 == | | == Inne pedie == |
| − | * http://www.gedanopedia.pl/
| + | # http://www.gedanopedia.pl/ |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==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.
| + | ==Filmy== |
| | + | # [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_According_to_Wikipedia The Truth According to Wikipedia, 2008] |
| | + | # [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Numbers%3F Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia 2010] |
