We sent a separate e-mail introducing our systematic literature review on
Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in English. As we mentioned, we
have identified over 2,100 peer-reviewed studies. This number of studies is far too large
for conducting a review synthesis, and so we have decided to focus only on peer-reviewed
journal publications and doctoral theses; we identified 638 such studies.
That leaves us with around 1,500 peer-reviewed conference articles, which we gathered from
the ACM Digital Library (http://portal.acm.org
) and IEEE Engineering Village
). We have posted the full list at
. Unfortunately, the only
criteria we have applied on selecting these articles is that "Wikipedia",
"wikipedian" or "wikipedians" appears in the title, abstract or
keywords. Thus, there are very likely some papers there that are only marginally related
to Wikipedia. For the journal articles and doctoral theses we discuss in the other thread,
we have verified each one to make sure that they are really substantially about Wikipedia;
however, we haven't done this for these conference articles. We estimate that 5 to 20%
of the articles may not actually be relevant.
Our question here is, what do we do with these conference articles? There is already a
list of conference papers at
(WP:ACST), which currently lists around 230 conference articles. Here are some thoughts of
what we could do:
* Merge the two lists. This would take too much time and effort, and since we're not
going to actually review the conference articles, for us it's just not worth it. Of
course, if someone else would like to do that, that would be great. The problem is that
it's not a bit-by-bit job; since it involves merging tables, it seems to be an
* Add our list to the end of the WP:ACST list. This would leave lots of duplicates
(probably between 100 and 200).
* Replace the WP:ACST list with our more complete list. This would lose the extra
information in many of the current WP:ACST article listings.
Another significant problem is that adding these 1,500 conference articles would greatly
lengthen an already extremely long page. Should the WP:ACST be subdivided into multiple
What do think? We're really not sure the best way to put this useful information out,
while retaining the value of what's already there.
Thanks for your help.
Chitu Okoli, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Arto Lanamäki, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
Mohamad Mehdi, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Mostafa Mesgari, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada