I've been collaborating with the group lens folks on citations. They've done basic statistics of sources of cites etc across .en. Will ask them about sending. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 20, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Jessie Wild &lt;jwild(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:jwild@wikimedia.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

I know of this paper "Scientific citations in Wikipedia" by Finn Årup Nielsen First Monday, volume 12, number 8 (August 2007), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/nielsen/index.html but, as the title says, it took into account only citations to scientific journals. On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM, phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

From the "building an encyclopedia" perspective, it's in Wikipedia's

Another interesting question (that would take a broader scope) would look at the frequency of *downstream* citations to works that are cited in Wikipedia versus all other citations. Per usual, correlation would definitely not be causation, BUT my usual practice is 1. Google 2. Wikipedia 3. Read some of the papers cited 4. (A miracle occurs) 5. Write my own paper Interesting to wonder how many of the papers read at step 3 survive the semantic leap to step 5. On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:52 PM, phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Greetings! I'm a CS Professor at Macalester College in St. Paul and I'm on research sabbatical at GroupLens this year. I've been working with Heather Ford and Dave Musicant to explore several research questions related to citation use on Wikipedia. We're still in the middle of analyzing data, and working through parsing lots of messy forms of citation references. However, I'll summarize our findings as they stand. As of Jan 1, 2011 there are 6384425 total citations in the main namespace for English Wikipedia. Our top-line research questions focus on citations containing URLs, so we broke down our results into citations with a URL (78%) and those without (22%). The top 5 domains in citations with a URL are: 1. books.google.com (73777 - 1.48%) 2. news.bbc.co.uk (52347 - 1.05%) 3. www.stat.gov.pl (51598 - 1.03%) 4. www.nytimes.com (39454 - 0.79%) 5. www.imdb.com (24993 - 0.50%) The top 5 types of citations without a URL are: 1. cite book (190090 - 13.65%) 2. citation needed (148339 - 10.65%) 3. cite journal (63722 - 4.58%) 4. cite news (25052 - 1.80%) 5. citation (22773 - 1.64%) We have also looked at the *inequality* in citation domains. In other words, what share of citations do the most popular domains receive? Citation inequality has been steadily growing; the Gini coefficient grew from 0.63 in Jan 2007 to 0.81 in Nov 2011. We hope to write up our results to share them formally in the not-too-distant future. Until then, I'm happy to answer questions! -Shilad On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM, phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Joe: that's the same question the alt-metrics people were getting at in the paper I posted earlier... does being cited in WP give you a measurable citations boost? Does the same boost carry over even if the work is only in print or behind a paywall vs open access? Or, does it have an effect at all on citations (versus *viewings*, where the additional exposure in WP must make a difference) since most published scholarship depends on larger lit reviews than are typically done in WP -- and there is a larger filter effect at work among the body of already published literature that may have a stronger effect on what gets cited and what doesn't? interest to cite general works, famous works, and review papers/works, which already are more likely to be more highly cited than average research papers. So one possibility is any citation boost from citations in WP just reinforces existing citation trends. -- phoebe On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Joe Corneli &lt;holtzermann17(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com * _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Shilad W. Sen Assistant Professor Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science Dept. Macalester College ssen(a)macalester.edu 651-696-6273 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Greetings! I'm a CS Professor at Macalester College in St. Paul and I'm on research sabbatical at GroupLens this year. I've been working with Heather Ford and Dave Musicant to explore several research questions related to citation use on Wikipedia. We're still in the middle of analyzing data, and working through parsing lots of messy forms of citation references. However, I'll summarize our findings as they stand. As of Jan 1, 2011 there are 6384425 total citations in the main namespace for English Wikipedia.

Our top-line research questions focus on citations containing URLs, so we broke down our results into citations with a URL (78%) and those without (22%). The top 5 domains in citations with a URL are: 1. books.google.com (73777 - 1.48%) 2. news.bbc.co.uk (52347 - 1.05%) 3. www.stat.gov.pl (51598 - 1.03%) 4. www.nytimes.com (39454 - 0.79%) 5. www.imdb.com (24993 - 0.50%)

The top 5 types of citations without a URL are: 1. cite book (190090 - 13.65%) 2. citation needed (148339 - 10.65%) 3. cite journal (63722 - 4.58%) 4. cite news (25052 - 1.80%) 5. citation (22773 - 1.64%)

We have also looked at the *inequality* in citation domains. In other words, what share of citations do the most popular domains receive? Citation inequality has been steadily growing; the Gini coefficient grew from 0.63 in Jan 2007 to 0.81 in Nov 2011.