Hi colleagues,
Sorry for spamming you again with our Wikipedia literature review, but
we found out that some of you might only have received a "scrubbed"
version of the email we send out 23 October with our announcement and
with a link to the paper as it presently stands:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021326
Below I am forwarding Chitu Okoli's original email. I hope this resend
version works better.
Regards
Finn Årup Nielsen
------------------------------------------------
Hi colleagues,
Our research team has posted an updated version of our Wikipedia
literature review at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021326. The previous
version was quite rough, so we never announced it on this list, though
the Wikimedia Research Newsletter did pick it up. This version is much
better polished and more complete. We would appreciate your looking at
the paper and giving us feedback. Here are some key features of this
updated version of our review:
* It is very long (around 500 references), so we recommend that you
follow the table of contents and only read the sections that cover
topics that actually interest you.
* We include a review of reviews, where we comment on all literature
reviews of Wikipedia that we know of. Please let us know if we missed any!
* We explain our search and inclusion criteria in detail. We couldn't
include everything, but we would appreciate comments.
* We describe and explain the WikiLit website in detail
(
http://wikilit.referata.com).
* We explain with an example how to use the website to support your own
literature reviews in searching for studies on Wikipedia.
* We include an extensive list of all Wikipedia-related researcher
resources that we know of. Please suggest anything that we're missing!
We are still very actively compiling and cleaning the data on our
WikiLit website (
http://wikilit.referata.com). We thank everyone who has
already contributed to the site, and ask others to please take a look at it:
* In particular, please at least look at your own papers and make sure
that what we have recorded is accurate.
* If we've missed any of your papers, please add them! ("Add
publication" on the left menu.)
* The answer to the challenge question for anonymous contributors is
"Wikipedia".
* Please create an account to skip the challenge question and so that we
can acknowledge you in our paper.
Our next major step will be to do various quantitative analyses based on
the website data (e.g. what research methodologies do studies of
Wikipedia reliability normally use; what kind of Wikipedia data do
studies of participation employ; etc.). Please suggest any such kinds of
analyses you might like to see.
Regards,
Chitu
For the WikiLit project team: Arto Lanamäki, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa
Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Chitu Okoli