At the risk of self-promotion, you might find the following useful. We looked at the "coverage" part, and not the "accuracy" part:

Halavais, A. and Lackaff, D. (2008) An Analysis of Topical Coverage of Wikipedia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (2). 429-440.

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Adrianne Wadewitz wadewitz@gmail.com wrote:

I am looking at submitting a grant so that I can work on an analyses of en.wikipedia's coverage of art, literature, and history articles - their accuracy, etc. I am looking to establish a complete bibliography of all of the "quality" assessments that have been done about Wikipedia - on any language. Could we pool our knowledge?

Thanks!

Adrianne

-- Adrianne Wadewitz Teaching Fellow English department Indiana University

---

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

Okoli, Chitu, and Kira Schabram. 2009. Protocol for a systematic literature review of research on the Wikipedihttp://chitu.okoli.org/images/stories/bios/pro/research/open/OkoliSchabram2009MEDES.pdfa. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems, 1:458-459. Vol. 1. Lyon, France: Association for Computing Machinery, October 27. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1643823.1643912.

Context: Wikipedia has become one of the ten-most visited sites on the Web, and the world's leading source of Web reference information. Its rapid success has attracted over 1,000 scholarly studies that treat Wikipedia as a major topic or data source. Objectives: This article presents a protocol for conducting a systematic mapping (a broad-based literature review) of research on Wikipedia. It identifies what research has been conducted; what research questions have been asked, which have been answered; and what theories and methodologies have been employed to study Wikipedia. Methods: This protocol follows the rigorous methodology of evidence-based software engineering to conduct a systematic mapping study. Results and conclusions: This protocol reports a study in progress.

Okoli, Chitu, Kira Schabram, and Bilal Abdul Kader. 2009. From the Academy to the Wiki: Practical Applications of Scholarly Research on Wikipediahttp://chitu.okoli.org/images/stories/bios/pro/research/open/Okolietal2009Wikimania.pdf. In Proceedings of Wikimania 2009. Buenos Aires: Wikimedia Foundation, August 26. http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:219.

To date, over 400 peer-reviewed scholarly studies have researched various aspects of Wikipedia. These studies contribute valuable knowledge in understanding the inner workings of Wikipedia and can serve to continuously improve it. In this presentation, we offer a coherent synthesis of the scholarly research that has been conducted on Wikipedia, highlighting the main research trends, summarizing the key findings, and identifying the gaps and unanswered questions. Based on these findings, we apply the research conclusions to the practical functioning of Wikipedia and highlight implications for policy and administration for Wikipedia contributors, administrators, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Okoli, Chitu. 2009. Information product creation through open source encyclopediashttp://chitu.okoli.org/images/stories/bios/pro/research/open/Okoli2009ICC.pdf. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computing in Engineering, Science and Informatics. Fullerton, USA: IEEE, April 2. http://www.fullerton.edu/icc2009/program.html.

This is the published article version of my grant application to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada http://www.sshrc.ca/. The grant is funded as ___.

The same open source philosophy that has been traditionally applied to software development can be applied to the collaborative creation of non-software information products, such as encyclopedias, books, and dictionaries. Most notably, the eight-year-old Wikipedia is a comprehensive general encyclopedia, comprising over 12 million articles in over 200 languages. It becomes increasingly important to rigorously investigate the workings of the open source process to understand its benefits and motivations. This paper presents a research program funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada with the following objectives: (1) Survey open source encyclopedia participants to understand their motivations for participating and their demographic characteristics, and compare them with participants in traditional open source software projects; (2) investigate the process of open source encyclopedia development in a live community to understand how their motivations interact in the open source framework to create quality information products.

Okoli, Chitu. 2009. A Brief Review of Studies of Wikipedia in Peer-Reviewed Journalshttp://chitu.okoli.org/images/stories/bios/pro/research/open/Okoli2009ICDS.pdf. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Digital Society, 2009., 155-160. Cancun, Mexico.

Since its establishment in 2001, Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has become a cultural icon of the unlimited possibilities of the World Wide Web. Thus, it has become a serious subject of scholarly study to objectively and rigorously understand it as a phenomenon. This paper reviews studies of Wikipedia that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Among the wealth of studies reviewed, major sub-streams of research covered include: how and why Wikipedia works; assessments of the reliability of its content; using it as a data source for various studies; and applications of Wikipedia in different domains of endeavour.

Bilal -- Verily, with hardship comes ease.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:28 AM, lior gimel lior.gimel@gmail.com wrote:

A good comparative analysis of history articles: Rosenzweig, Roy (2006). "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past". *Journal of American History*, vol. 93, n° 1, p. 117–146.

Best, Lior.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Adrianne Wadewitz wadewitz@gmail.comwrote:

...

I am looking at submitting a grant so that I can work on an analyses of en.wikipedia's coverage of art, literature, and history articles - their accuracy, etc. I am looking to establish a complete bibliography of all of the "quality" assessments that have been done about Wikipedia - on any language. Could we pool our knowledge?

Thanks!

Adrianne

-- Adrianne Wadewitz Teaching Fellow English department Indiana University

---

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

---

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

Guillaume Paumier wrote:

Greetings,

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Adrianne Wadewitz wadewitz@gmail.com wrote:

...

I am looking at submitting a grant so that I can work on an analyses of en.wikipedia's coverage of art, literature, and history articles - their accuracy, etc. I am looking to establish a complete bibliography of all of the "quality" assessments that have been done about Wikipedia - on any language. Could we pool our knowledge?

I would advise to take a look at http://www.citeulike.org/group/382/tag/quality

Also, search this page for the string "quality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia