This largely depends on what you mean by "about" Many tens of thousands of articles use a wikipedia or other WMF service as a source in some way (either a source for a definition, a selection or as a traditional datasource in some way) or speculate about the future of wikis.
At the other end of the spectrum, a vanishing small number tell experienced wikipedia editors anything they didn't already know about their wikipedia or other WMF service or quantify things we know in ways we don't see as deeply flawed. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 02:36, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > to everyone to whom it concerns, my best wishes for the year 2020! > I am interested in the number of scientific papers or monographies, > articles etc. about wikis. Do you know about a paper that has come up with > a relatively recent number? > In my understanding, there are several problems that make it unwise to > simply search for "wiki" in a general catalogue: > * the word wiki can appear in words such as "Wikinger" (German for: > viking), or it is used as a metaphor (e.g., for a reform of democracy) > * some entities such as Wikileaks have "wiki" in their name, but are no > wikis, and some entities such as Open Street Map are wikis, but don't have > the word in their name > * wiki relevant topics may appear under terms such as "collaborative > writing" or "open content creation". > > Kind regards > Ziko > _______________________________________________ > 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
