Hi Everyone,
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2017.
This month's presentation:
A Glimpse into BabelAn Analysis of Multilinguality in WikidataBy *Lucie-Aimée Kaffee*Multilinguality is an important topic for knowledge bases, especially Wikidata, that was build to serve the multilingual requirements of an international community. Its labels are the way for humans to interact with the data. In this talk, we explore the state of languages in Wikidata as of now, especially in regard to its ontology, and the relationship to Wikipedia. Furthermore, we set the multilinguality of Wikidata in the context of the real world by comparing it to the distribution of native speakers. We find an existing language maldistribution, which is less urgent in the ontology, and promising results for future improvements. An outlook on how users interact with languages on Wikidata will be given.
Science is Shaped by WikipediaEvidence from a Randomized Control TrialBy *Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley*As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways: correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without traditional access to scientific information.
Many kind regards,
Sarah R. Rodlund Senior Project Coordinator-Product & Technology, Wikimedia Foundation srodlund@wikimedia.org
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand." Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2017.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways: correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
So fix it, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand." Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2017.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways: correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Hoi, There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so fix it" is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM
On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
So fix it, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand." Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
Showcase#September_2017>.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways: correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard, If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment. If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do with data uploads. If it does, perhaps you could enlighten me. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Hoi, There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so fix it" is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM
On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
So fix it, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand." Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
Showcase#September_2017>.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways: correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, The problem is that sources become controversial when there is nothing that mitigates their validity when other sources indicate that they have been invalidated. This is of particular relevance when organisations like Cochrane indicate this. The wholesale import into Wikidata essentially cements these sources as being valid. As a consequence it has everything to do with data uploads. Wikidata is not a stamp collection and we do not have proper means to invalidate. Consider for instance that in Norway a whole set of substances used in mental health are no longer provided. In the USA and elsewhere these same substances are subscribed while it is KNOWN that they are no better than a placebo.
Just copying controversial data into Wikidata is problematic and just saying that somebody else has to fix it is dodging responsibility. Thanks, Gerard
On 27 September 2017 at 08:42, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
Gerard, If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment. If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do with data uploads. If it does, perhaps you could enlighten me. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Hoi, There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so fix it" is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM
On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
So fix it, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand." Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
Showcase#September_2017>.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents
this in two ways:
correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As far as I can make out, James was referring to English Wikipedia articles on economics, not Wikidata. One of us is confused. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:30 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Hoi, The problem is that sources become controversial when there is nothing that mitigates their validity when other sources indicate that they have been invalidated. This is of particular relevance when organisations like Cochrane indicate this. The wholesale import into Wikidata essentially cements these sources as being valid. As a consequence it has everything to do with data uploads. Wikidata is not a stamp collection and we do not have proper means to invalidate. Consider for instance that in Norway a whole set of substances used in mental health are no longer provided. In the USA and elsewhere these same substances are subscribed while it is KNOWN that they are no better than a placebo.
Just copying controversial data into Wikidata is problematic and just saying that somebody else has to fix it is dodging responsibility. Thanks, Gerard
On 27 September 2017 at 08:42, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
Gerard, If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment. If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do with data uploads. If it does, perhaps you could enlighten me. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Hoi, There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so fix it" is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM
On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
So fix it, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand." Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
Showcase#September_2017>.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents
this in two ways:
correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That example is only the most visible tip of the iceberg. Now that there is evidence of multiple causal influences from Wikipedia's text to real life consequences, I repeat my suggestion that the Foundation should help editors organize a more careful and concerted effort towards authentic neutrality in economics and political economics articles which are likely to influence fiscal policies, just like it helps support the Medical and Women's user group affiliates today. I have no illusions that if I were part of such a formal effort it would be less successful than if it were composed entirely of Enwiki editors in good standing, and I will not be correcting the specific mistake in the Economics because I want to know how long it will stand, especially now that good alternatives have been proposed on its talk page (for several months!) There are plenty of others very much like it in other articles.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
So fix it, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand." Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2017.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways: correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
To clarify, WPMEDF has self organized without direct WMF involvement. While we are a member of the WM movement and support has been provided for a couple of members to attend WMCON, we has never applied for or received specific funding from the WM movement.
Individuals, associated with WPMEDF, have applied for and received individual engagement grants. In other words all these opportunities are avaliable from the movement for those interested in improving Wikipedia's economics coverage.
Best James
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:29 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
That example is only the most visible tip of the iceberg. Now that there is evidence of multiple causal influences from Wikipedia's text to real life consequences, I repeat my suggestion that the Foundation should help editors organize a more careful and concerted effort towards authentic neutrality in economics and political economics articles which are likely to influence fiscal policies, just like it helps support the Medical and Women's user group affiliates today. I have no illusions that if I were part of such a formal effort it would be less successful than if it were composed entirely of Enwiki editors in good standing, and I will not be correcting the specific mistake in the Economics because I want to know how long it will stand, especially now that good alternatives have been proposed on its talk page (for several months!) There are plenty of others very much like it in other articles.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
So fix it, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20,
2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced
by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are
tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
Showcase#September_2017>.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways: correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The paper is at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3039505
From page 35: "even with many conservative assumptions, dissemination
through Wikipedia is ~1700x more cost-effective than traditional dissemination techniques"
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:39 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
To clarify, WPMEDF has self organized without direct WMF involvement. While we are a member of the WM movement and support has been provided for a couple of members to attend WMCON, we has never applied for or received specific funding from the WM movement.
Individuals, associated with WPMEDF, have applied for and received individual engagement grants. In other words all these opportunities are avaliable from the movement for those interested in improving Wikipedia's economics coverage.
Best James
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:29 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
That example is only the most visible tip of the iceberg. Now that there is evidence of multiple causal influences from Wikipedia's text to real life consequences, I repeat my suggestion that the Foundation should help editors organize a more careful and concerted effort towards authentic neutrality in economics and political economics articles which are likely to influence fiscal policies, just like it helps support the Medical and Women's user group affiliates today. I have no illusions that if I were part of such a formal effort it would be less successful than if it were composed entirely of Enwiki editors in good standing, and I will not be correcting the specific mistake in the Economics because I want to know how long it will stand, especially now that good alternatives have been proposed on its talk page (for several months!) There are plenty of others very much like it in other articles.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
So fix it, Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20,
2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced
by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are
tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R srodlund@wikimedia.org wrote:
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And, you can watch our past research showcases here <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
Showcase#September_2017>.
...
Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways: correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those without
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org