Personally, I have seen no qualitative decrease in high quality studies of Wikimedia projects. It seems to me that a whole new class of studies about Wikidata are just gaining traction and that the ACM conferences I frequent have a renewed interest in Wikipedia as an instance of a mature open production system.

With that in mind, I can certainly believe that the rate of low impact studies has experienced substantial decline. It seems clear that Wikipedia -- as a research subject -- is no longer a subject that is interesting by default.

-Aaron

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

Piotr Konieczny, 14/11/2014 09:24:

How complete is wikipapers referata site?

Rather complete. There are some duplicates but we definitely have the majority of the publications (perhaps 90 %?) known to most sources.

Could it be the case of lack
of updates/maintenance/editor activity resulting in missing data?

I doubt it. It's possible however that there are biases in coverage, as Jane speculates. If you have some sources for numbers of publications in a certain language/topic/country/year, we may compare to those of WikiPapers and see how big the gap is.

Kerry, maybe it's just about things getting tough as you say. But I'm careful about such conclusions, just as I'm not convinced that the "everything easy has already been written" theory can explain the fall of new users after the peak in 2006/2007, across all Wikimedia projects however (un)developed.
Much rather easy research would be possible, but we're not seeing it.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l