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