Dear Heather,
In our WikiLit systematic reviews we found a few publications. I have
just made a semantic query on the WikiLit site to give you an overview:
http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/WikiLit:Quality
There are not that many. You should find them described in our review on
research on Wikipedia content: "The sum of all human knowledge": a
systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia
http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978618/1/WikiLit_Content_%2D_open_access_version.pdf
http://neuro.compute.dtu.dk/wiki/%22The_sum_of_all_human_knowledge%22:_a_systematic_review_of_scholarly_research_on_the_content_of_Wikipedia
best
Finn Årup Nielsen
On 06/10/2014 01:09 PM, Heather Ford wrote:
Hi Anders,
Yes, it's a great question! Mark Graham and I are currently working on a
project around how to determine quality within and between Wikipedias
and I've been looking around for literature. I'm only just starting the
literature review but I've found some interesting studies by Callahan &
Herring (2011) [1] and Stvilia, Al-Faraj, and Yi (2009) [2]. The
majority of quality studies, we find, have been done on English
Wikipedia (starting with the famous 2005 Nature study) but there have
been few studies that assess of quality between languages. If you find
anything else, let us know!
Thanks!
Best,
heather.
[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21577/abstract
[2]
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/200773220_Issues_of_cross-contextual_information_quality_evaluation_-_The_case_of_Arabic_English_and_Korean_Wikipedia/file/60b7d51ae682e9912a.pdf
Heather Ford
Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
http://hblog.org <http://hblog.org/> | @hfordsa
<http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
On 10 June 2014 07:58, Anders Wennersten <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
(reposted from Wikimedia-i)
I have several times asked for a professional quality study of our
different language versions, but not seen it exist or being done,
perhaps you know more on this list?. before we start the strategy
work I believe we should have basic facts on the table like this one
I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily looking
into the different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being created
on sv.wp) (I list them in order how often I use them to calibrate
the svwp articles).
enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles
on marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even
if rather bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?)
eswp - a very good version, which in the general discussion are not
getting appropriate credit
dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the
elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious
subjects (that after time passes gets very relevant)?
frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage
and the different articles (even in same subject area)
nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality
on articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies
itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered,
nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext
sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one
in other languages
ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume
and accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles
are uneven. I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which
I use very seldom as the different alphabet makes it hard to
understand the article content
dawp,fiwp and plwp -Ok but only used by me for articles related to
the country
(arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated)
(I also use some smaller ones like sqwp , in these versions I have
seen serious quality problems not to be found in any of the above
ones, I am not sure they even have basic patrolling in place)
Anders
_________________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.__wikimedia.org
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wiki-__research-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
