I agree it's not a new worry, but it might change the nature of the
problem a bit, and is worth at least being vigilant about. I did have a
similar idea some years ago, to compute an "impact factor" for
being-cited-on-Wikipedia, but after discussing it with some colleagues,
didn't do so specifically because of the worry that it would encourage
more gaming of Wikipedia citations. Of course it's inevitable that
someone would eventually do it, but I still think it was probably right
on balance to not push that date forward.
Regarding the SEO analogy, the external links on Wikipedia are on
average not the best part of Wikipedia, so it's not a very heartening
The citations for now are not nearly as spammy as the external links
are, and I hope it stays that way!
It's of course not new that there is an incentive to spam citations.
Even without explicit Wikipedia-citation-tracking, there are incentives
to spam marginally relevant citations in order to increase perceived
prominence. Maybe being in a Wikipedia article will get your paper in
front of more grad students who will end up citing it "for real" after
encountering it on Wikipedia, etc. A direct citation count feels like
it's likely to exacerbate that, since now removing an irrelevant
citation to someone's article is a direct attack on their metrics!
Though it's possible the actual effect on editing patterns will be
small.
From a research perspective, the new datasets of
citations might be
interesting to track over time, and correlate back to editors, to
see if
there are any interesting (or "interesting") patterns.
-Mark
--
mjn |
http://www.anadrome.org
Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> writes:
And SEO spammers will add themselves, too! This is not
a new problem.
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Do I understand this correctly? That Wikipedia articles that cite
> academic publications will be included in citation count now (at least for
> altmetrics). While that’s great recognition for Wikipedia as a corpus of
> scholarly work, does that mean Wikipedia will be overrun with academic
> authors adding citations to their academic papers in any Wikipedia article
> they can get away with in order to improve their citation counts for their
> CVs?
>
>
>
> I note that generally we can spot self-citation because the two papers
> will have an author name in common, but with the ability to edit Wikipedia
> anonymously and pseudonymously means that we cannot spot self-citation.
>
>
>
> While judging research purely on citation counts is a deeply flawed method
> of assessment, nonetheless it is a reality and the pressure on folks to
> “game” the system is tremendous given the role it can play in appointment,
> tenure, promotion and grant applications.
>
>
>
> On the positive side, we might be able to get rid of a lot of
> citation-needed tags.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org');>
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Pine W
> *Sent:* Friday, 6 February 2015 8:13 AM
> *To:* Wiki Research-l; Raymond Leonard; Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration
> [Public]; North American Cultural Partnerships
> *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l]
Altmetric.com now tracks Wikipedia citations
>
>
>
> FYI:
>
>
http://www.altmetric.com/blog/new-source-alert-wikipedia/
>
> Pine
>
> This is an Encyclopedia <https://www.wikipedia.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
> our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear water we
> must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile earth, in
> which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And the broad
> fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
> know. —Catherine Munro *
>