Dear all, A Swedish professor is writing a piece on Wikipedia for Sweden's largest daily newspaper, for the upcoming 20 years anniversary. She asked me for "interesting and widespread studies" on Wikipedia – not necessarily within any certain focus. If you would share 2 or 3 studies, that have gained some attention and that you find interesting, which would these be? Would be very happy for any help! Best *Eric Luth* Projektledare engagemang och påverkan | Project Manager, Involvement and Advocacy Wikimedia Sverige eric.luth(a)wikimedia.se +46 (0) 765 55 50 95 Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige. Läs mer på blimedlem.wikimedia.se _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

One thing I've noticed is that all the papers I'm referencing focus on the English Wikipedia. When it comes to studies of other language editions, or across multiple ones, I've struggled to come up with a key paper to point to.

Hopefully someone else chimes in and fills that hole, as it's important to recognize that "Wikipedia" doesn't equal the English one.

Den fre 18 dec. 2020 kl 16:23 skrev Morten Wang <nettrom(a)gmail.com>om>: in quality I think we need to start recommending it with a short explanation on current trends and mention that it describes a piece of Wikipedia history (where the mechanics behind the trend could still be relevant). You see the same curve in a number of other languages (especially languages mainly spoken in northern Europe), and like English they've typically flattened out, English already around 2014, other number of languages with a similar trend around 2018, yet we can still read that the Wikipedia editorship is in decline in the present tense in papers and articles on English Wikipedia published in 2020, referencing The Rise and Decline. //Johan Jönsson -- _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

In Wikidata we have annotated 1873 items (articles, books, etc.) as about Wikipedia. Some of them are listed in Scholia: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q52 Halfaker et al's "2013" paper, as mentioned, I would also mention. Apart from that there is the famous Nature editorial article "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" from 2005 which may have contributed to Wikipedia rise. I think it is the most cited Wikipedia study. It has 3182 Google Scholar citations. And it is the most cited study among the Wikipedia works in Wikidata. best regards Finn On 18/12/2020 18.23, Jeremy Foote wrote: _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

In the human-computer interaction field, I'd highlight three seminal papers: Viégas and Wattenberg's 2004 paper established Wikipedia as an area of study, and used novel visualization techniques to demonstrate how quickly vandalism is removed from the encyclopedia. Back in 2004, the main research question was probably "how does this thing even work?", particularly with regards to combating vandalism, and this paper starts the path of answering that question. Priedhorsky et al's 2007 paper dug into authorship of content that is viewed, giving us good insights into the "who writes Wikipedia?" question. It asks some important questions around what "value" is in a peer-production community like Wikipedia (is content that is viewed more often more valuable?) There's also some cool methodological aspects of this paper (it uses MD5 checksums for revert detection, and there's now SHA1 checksums for all revision in Wikipedia's API). Halfaker et al's 2013 paper digs deeply into answering why the Wikipedia community started declining in 2007. They find that the quality assurance processes that were created to deal with the firehose of content coming in with the exponential growth around 2004–2005 also end up discarding good-faith contributions. This highlights the problem of how to do quality assurance while also being a welcoming community to newcomers who are struggling to learn all of Wikipedia's various rules and conventions (see also the Teahouse paper). Another question that I find really interesting and that is perhaps often overlooked is "why did Wikipedia succeed?" It's easy to think that there were few or no other competitors in the online encyclopedia space at the time it got started, but there were a bunch of them. Mako Hill's PhD thesis has a chapter that looks at that <https://mako.cc/academic/hill-almost_wikipedia-DRAFT.pdf>, and he also gave a talk at the Berkman Klein Center <https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2011/10/makohill> about this. One thing I've noticed is that all the papers I'm referencing focus on the English Wikipedia. When it comes to studies of other language editions, or across multiple ones, I've struggled to come up with a key paper to point to. Hopefully someone else chimes in and fills that hole, as it's important to recognize that "Wikipedia" doesn't equal the English one. Cited papers: - Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004, April). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In *Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems* (pp. 575-582). - Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., Lam, S. T. K., Panciera, K., Terveen, L., & Riedl, J. (2007, November). Creating, destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work* (pp. 259-268). - Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., Morgan, J. T., & Riedl, J. (2013). The rise and decline of an open collaboration system: How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline. *American Behavioral Scientist*, *57*(5), 664-688. - Morgan, J. T., Bouterse, S., Walls, H., & Stierch, S. (2013, February). Tea and sympathy: crafting positive new user experiences on wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work* (pp. 839-848). Hill, Benjamin Mako. “Essays on Volunteer Mobilization in Peer Production.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013. On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 05:44, Eric Luth &lt;eric.luth(a)wikimedia.se&gt; wrote: within that _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l