Personally, I have seen no qualitative decrease in high quality studies of Wikimedia projects. It seems to me that a whole new class of studies about Wikidata are just gaining traction and that the ACM conferences I frequent have a renewed interest in Wikipedia as an instance of a mature open production system.
With that in mind, I can certainly believe that the rate of low impact studies has experienced substantial decline. It seems clear that Wikipedia -- as a research subject -- is no longer a subject that is interesting by default. -Aaron On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote: > Piotr Konieczny, 14/11/2014 09:24: > >> How complete is wikipapers referata site? >> > > Rather complete. There are some duplicates but we definitely have the > majority of the publications (perhaps 90 %?) known to most sources. > > Could it be the case of lack >> of updates/maintenance/editor activity resulting in missing data? >> > > I doubt it. It's possible however that there are biases in coverage, as > Jane speculates. If you have some sources for numbers of publications in a > certain language/topic/country/year, we may compare to those of WikiPapers > and see how big the gap is. > > Kerry, maybe it's just about things getting tough as you say. But I'm > careful about such conclusions, just as I'm not convinced that the > "everything easy has already been written" theory can explain the fall of > new users after the peak in 2006/2007, across all Wikimedia projects > however (un)developed. > Much rather easy research would be possible, but we're not seeing it. > > > Nemo > > _______________________________________________ > 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
