Ever since Wikipedia Was A Few years old, there-have-been Numerous academic studies about Wikipedia in peer-reviewed publications. This research can be grouped into two categories. The first analyzed the production and reliability of the encyclopedia content, while the second investigated social aspects, such as use and administration. Such studies are greatly facilitated by the fact that Wikipedia ‘s database can be downloaded without help from the site owner. [1]



A minority of editors produce the majority of persistent content

In a landmark peer-reviewed paper, [2] aussi MENTIONED in The Guardian , [3] a team of six Researchers from the University of Minnesota Measured the relationship entre editors ‘edit count and the editors’ Ability to Convey Their writings to Wikipedia readers (PWV) -the number of times a word is written by an edit is viewed. The accounting method is best described using the author’s own words: “each time an article is viewed, each of its words is also viewed. The number of times was estimated from the web server logs.

The researchers analyzed 25 trillion PWVs at the end of this period, the top 10% of editors (by edit count) were credited with 86% of PWVs, the Top 1% about 70%, and the top 0.1% (4200 users) were awarded 44% of PWVs, ie nearly half of Wikipedia’s “value” as measured in this study. The top 10 editors (by PWV) contributed only 2.6% of PWVs, and only three of them were in top 50 by edit count. From the data, the study authors derived the following relationship:

Growth of PWV share increases super-exponentially by edit count rank; In other words, elite editors (those who edit the most times) account for more value than they would [be attributed] given a power-lawrelationship.

The study also analyzed the impact of bots on content. By edit count, bots dominate Wikipedia; 9 of the top 10 and 20 of the top 50 are bots. In contrast, in the PWV ranking only two bots appear in the top 50, and none in the top 10.

Based on the steady growth of the influence on the top 0.1% editors by PWV, the study concluded unequivocally:

… Frequent editors dominate what people see when they visit Wikipedia and … this domination is increasing.

Work distribution and social strata

Further information: Criticism of Wikipedia § Social stratification

A peer-reviewed paper ” Social stratification in the Wikipedia society” due to the “admins class”. The paper suggested that such stratification could be done in some respects, but recognized as “clear subsequent shift in power between levels of stratification” due to the “status and power differentials” between administrators and other editors. [4]

Analyzing the entire edit history of Wikipedia up to July 2006, the same study of the influence of the administered edicts has been steadily diminished since 2003, when administered roughly 50% of total edits, to 2006 when only 10% of the edits were Performed by administrators. This happened despite the fact that the average number of edits per administrator had increased more than fivefold during the same period. This phenomenon was labeled the “rise of the crowd” by the authors of the paper. Edited instead of the number of edited actions shown a similar pattern. Because the admin class is somewhat arbitrary with respect to the number of edicts, The study also considered a breakdown of users in categories based on the number of edits performed. The results for “elite users”, ie users with more than 10,000 edits, were somewhat in line with those obtained for administrators, except that “the number of words changed by elite users The number of edits made by novice users has grown proportionally faster “. The elite users were allocated about 30% of the changes for 2006. The study concludes:

So although their influence may have waned in recent years, elite users appear to contribute to the size of the work done in Wikipedia. Moreover, … edits made by elite users appear to be substantial in nature. …


Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia

John Goodwin is an expert in the field of epistemic or pragmatic merits. While readers may not be able to comment on the content of this article, they are not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the content. [5]


Wikipedia articles about a place on Earth. However, research by the Oxford Internet Institute has shown that the geographic distribution of Most articles are written about North America, Europe, and East Asia, with very little coverage of large parts of the developing world, including most of Africa. [6]

Natural language processing

The textual happy and the structured hierarchy of Wikipedia HAS Become an importance source for knowledge Researchers in natural language processing and artificial intelligence . In 2007 researchers at Technion – Israel Institute of Technology developed a technique called Explicit Semantic Analysis [7] which uses the world knowledge contained in Wikipedia articles. Conceptual representations of words and texts are used to compute the similarity between words and texts.

Researchers at Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab use the linguistic and world knowledge encoded in Wikipedia and Wiktionary to automatically create linguistic knowledge bases which are similar to expert-built resources like WordNet . [8] Strube and Ponzetto created an algorithm to identify relationships between words by traversing Wikipedia via its categorization scheme and Wikipedia had created “a taxonomy able to compete with WordNet on linguistic processing tasks.” [9]

Reviews of content fields

Health information

Main article: Health information on Wikipedia

Health information is Wikipedia is popularly accessed as results from search engines and search engine result page , qui frequently deliver links to Wikipedia items. [10] Independent assessments of the quality of the information provided on Wikipedia and of which is accessing the information have been undertaken. The number and demographics of people who seek health information on Wikipedia, the scope of health information on Wikipedia, and the quality of the information on Wikipedia have been studied. [11] There are drawbacks to using Wikipedia as a source of health information.

Social aspects


A 2007 study by Hitwise , reproduced in Time magazine, [12] found that visitors to Wikipedia are almost equally split 50/50 male / female, but that 60% of edits are made by male editors.

WikiWarMonitor qui est share of the European Commission , CORDIS FP7 FET-Open supported project called Expired ICTeCollective, published-have:

In IEEE Xplore “Edit wars in Wikipedia” for IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom). [13]

In 2012 in PLoS ONE , it Reported That person based on circadian activity pattern analysis, the shares of contributions to English Wikipedia, from North America and Europe are Almost equal, whereas this Increases to 75% of European contributions for the Simple English Wikipedia . The research also covers some other demographic analysis on the other editions in different languages. [14]

In 2013 in Physical Review Letters “Opinions, Conflicts, and Consensus: Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative Environment”. [15]

In 2014 published as a book “The Most Controversial Topics in Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis”; The authors of this article are the authors of several articles on the subject of controversial topics in various languages ​​and groups of languages. For the English version, the top three most controversial articles were George W. Bush , Anarchism and Muhammad . Ségolène Royal (French), Chile (Spanish) and Homosexuality (Czech). [16]

Policies and guidelines

A descriptive study [17] that analyzed English language Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines up to September 2007

  • 44 official policies
  • 248 guidelines

Even a short policy like “ignore all rules” was found to have a lot of discussion and clarifications:

While the “Ignore all rules” policy is only sixteen words long, the page explaining what the policy means contains over 500 words, refers readers to seven other documents, has generated over 8,000 words of discussion, and has been changed over 100 times in Less than a year.

The study sampled the expansion of some key policies since their inception:

  • Wikipedia: Ignore all rules : 3600% (including the additional document explaining it)
  • Wikipedia: Consensus : 1557%
  • Wikipedia: Copyrights : 938%
  • Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not : 929%
  • Wikipedia: Deletion policy : 580%
  • Wikipedia: Civility : 124%

The number for “deletion” was considered inconclusive because the policy was split in several sub-policies.

Power plays

See also: Community of Wikipedia § Editorial process

A 2007 joint peer-reviewed study [18] conducted by researchers from the University of Washington and HP Labs examined how to work with consensus by quantitatively analyzing a sample of active talk pages. Using a November 2006 database, the study focused on 250 talk pages in the tail of the distribution: 0.3% of all talk pages, containing 28.4% of all talk pages revisions, and more . From the sampled pages’ histories, the study examined only the months with high activity, called critical sections of consecutive months.

The study defined and calculated a measure of policy prevalence. A critical section was considered policy-laden if its policy factor was at least twice the average. Articles were tagged with 3 indicator variables :

  • controversial
  • featured
  • policy-laden

All possible levels of these sampling categories. The study intended to analyze 9 articles from each sampling category, but only 6 articles (histories) were simultaneously featured, controversial, and policy laden.

The study found that policies were by no means consistently applied. Illustrative of its broader findings, the report presented the following two extracts from Wikipedia talk pages in obvious contrast:

  • A discussion of the participants,

Is the mean … not considered original research? [U3]
It does not look like it to me, it looks like the original research was done by [Gov’t agency] or am I missing something? [U4]
If the [Gov’t agency] has not published the actual mean, us “calculating” it would be OR, no? I’m not sure. [U3]
No, why would it be? Extrapolating from info already available is not OR. [U5]
From WP: NOR “articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas or statements. For what ‘worth … [U4]

  • A discussion where logical deduction was used as counterargument for the original research policy:

Your notion is WP: OR. I can easily provide. . . A scholarly article that says that anti-authoritarianism is not central to Panism. You are synthesizing all kinds of ideas here, based on your POV. [U6]
Simple deductive reasoning is not original research. Panism is inherently anti-authoritarian; Therefore, an authoritarian economic system can not be Panist. Which do you disagree with: the premise or the conclusion? [U7]

Claiming That Such Ambiguities Easily give rise to power plays, the study APPROBATION, using the methods of grounded theory (Strauss) , 7 types of power plays:

  • Article scope (what is off-topic in an article)
  • (Uncontested and uncontested)
  • Power of interpretation (a sub-community claiming greater interpretive authority than another)
  • Legitimacy of contributor (his / her expertise)
  • Threat of sanction (blocking etc.)
  • Practice on other pages
  • Legitimacy of source (authority of references being disputed)

Due to lack of space, the study detailed only the first 4 types of power plays that were exercised by merely interpreting policy. A fifth power play was analyzed; It has been forbidden to take part in violations of the law.

Article scope

The study considers that Wikipedia’s policies are ambiguous on scoping issues. The following vignette is used to illustrate the claim:

… consensus is bullshit because I have the facts on my side. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia has an article on : Paleocentrism Wikipedia, the freeencyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia policies: NPOV, be bold … If you all want an article just on the scientific theory of paleocentrism, write one yourself. [U12]
We DID write an article just on the scientific theory of paleocentrism, before you have shown up … You’re obviously new here, [U12] … arguing on your reading of NPOV and Be bold is a bit ridiculous , Like a kid just out of high school arguing points of constitutional law. These things are principles that have an an aboriginal meaning. People who have been here for years understand them much better than you do.
The paleocentrism of the paleocentrism is not the same as that of the paleocentrism. [U14]
… the first thing the link is: “wiki is not paper says is:” ” Wikipedia “is” an encyclopedia. “” A real encyclopedia like Encyclopædia Britannica has a fantastic section on paleocentrism, including all the social, political, and philosophical implications. [U12]
As discussed at Wikipedia: wiki is not paper, Wikipedia articles should give a brief overview of the central aspects of a subject. To a biologist like yourself, the central aspect of paleocentrism is certainly its social implications, but to the rest of society it is.
… [U12] … What you’re talking about is not “paleocentrism”. Central issues to paleocentrism are periodic equilibrium, geomorphous undulation, airation. These are the issues that actually have to do with the process of paleocentrism itself. These “social aspects” you’re talking about are “peripheral”, “not central”. They are “about” paleocentrism, they “surround” paleocentrism, but they are not paleocentrism “… [U15] The central aspect of paleocentrism is certainly its social implications, but to the rest of society it is. … [U12] … What you’re talking about is not “paleocentrism”. Central issues to paleocentrism are periodic equilibrium, geomorphous undulation, airation. These are the issues that actually have to do with the process of paleocentrism itself. These “social aspects” you’re talking about are “peripheral”, “not central”. They are “about” paleocentrism, they “surround” paleocentrism, but they are not paleocentrism “… [U15] The central aspect of paleocentrism is certainly its social implications, but to the rest of society it is. … [U12] … What you’re talking about is not “paleocentrism”. Central issues to paleocentrism are periodic equilibrium, geomorphous undulation, airation. These are the issues that actually have to do with the process of paleocentrism itself. These “social aspects” you’re talking about are “peripheral”, “not central”. They are “about” paleocentrism, they “surround” paleocentrism, but they are not paleocentrism “… [U15] Central issues to paleocentrism are periodic equilibrium, geomorphous undulation, airation. These are the issues that actually have to do with the process of paleocentrism itself. These “social aspects” you’re talking about are “peripheral”, “not central”. They are “about” paleocentrism, they “surround” paleocentrism, but they are not paleocentrism “… [U15] Central issues to paleocentrism are periodic equilibrium, geomorphous undulation, airation. These are the issues that actually have to do with the process of paleocentrism itself. These “social aspects” you’re talking about are “peripheral”, “not central”. They are “about” paleocentrism, they “surround” paleocentrism, but they are not paleocentrism “… [U15]

The study gives the following interpretation for the heated debate:

Such struggles over article scope take place even in a hyper-linked environment because the title of an article matters. The “paleocentrism” article is more prestigious and more likely to be encountered by a reader than an article entitled “the social effect of paleocentrism.”

Prior consensus

The study remarks that in Wikipedia consensus is never final, and what constitutes consensus can change at any time. The study finds that this temporal ambiguity is fertile ground for power plays, and places the generational struggle over consensus in the picture of the struggle for article ownership:

In practice, … there are often de facto owners of pages or coalitions of contributors that determine article content. Prior consensus in this group can be presented as indisputable, masking the power plays that may have gone into establishing a consensus. … At issue is the legitimacy of prior consensus. Longtime contributors do not want to waste time having arguments about issues that they consider to be solved. Pointing to prior consensus, just like linking to policies, provides a method for dealing with trollish behavior. On the other hand, newcomers or fringe.

The study uses the following discussion snippet to illustrate this continuous struggle:

Most all the stuff [U17] . . It’s like that game of whack-a-mole: they try one angle, it gets refuted; They try a second angle, it gets refuted; They try a third angle, it gets refuted; And then they try the first angle again. [U18]
[Cosmic Polarity] religiously … why do not you consider that [U19], [U20] and the rest of you drive editors away from this article with your heavy-handed, admin-privileged POV push? [U21]

Power of interpretation

A vignette illustrated how administrators overrode consensus and deleted personal accounts of the patient / patients suffering from an anonimized illness (named Frupism in the study). The Administrator’s Intervention was a nominated to become a featured article.

Legitimacy of contributor

This type of power play is illustrated by a contributor (U24) that draws on his past contributions to argue against another contributor who is accusing U24 of being unproductive and disruptive:

Oh, you mean “I” hang around to make a point about the lack of quality on Wikipedia? Please take a look at my edit count !! LOL. I have over 7,000 edits … As you know, I can take credit for almost all writing from scratch 2 of the 6 or 7 FAs in philosophy … [U24]

Explicit life for ownership

The study finds that there are contributors who consistently and successfully violate policy without sanction:

U24 makes several blatant “us or them” lives for power: if U25’s actions persist, he will leave. … Such actions clearly violate policies against article ownership, civility to other contributors, and treatment of newcomers. As a newcomer, U25 may not know of these policies, but U26 certainly does. The willing blindness [of U26] stems from the fact that U24 is a valued contributor to philosophy articles and is not bashful about pointing this out. There is a scarcity of contributors with the commitment to consistently produce high-quality content; The Wikipedian community is willing to tolerate abuse and policy violations if valued work is being done. …

With all due respect, that did not answer the question … I wanted to know what it was in U25’s proposal which was unacceptable. . . His lack of reference etc. Is all a fault, sure, but that’s why I provided one (Inquiry, section 8). [U26]
… this point is already addressed in the article … It may need to be expanded a bit. I can easily do that when I have time … Is there anythin else? Do you also support U25’s life that the article is “poor”, that is needs to overhauled from top to bottom, the meanignsess nonsens that he actually did try to insert above or the other OR that he stated on this page? Basically, there are two sides on this matter, this article can be taken over by cranks like what’s his name, or not? If it does, I go. You can either support me or not. Where do you stand? …
[U24] I do not have any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I disagree with many of the things U25 has said elsewhere on this page … I’m genuinely sorry if this upset you. [U26]

Obtaining administratorship

See also: Wikipedia administrators

Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University devised [19] has probit model of editors-have successfully Who Passed the peer review process To Become admins . Using only Wikipedia metadata, including the text of edit summaries, their model is 74.8% accurate in predicting successful candidates.

The paper has been published in a series of articles on the mass media. Consequently, the paper used policy capture [20] -a method that compares nominally important attributes to those that actually lead to promotion in a work environment.

The overall success rate for promotion was 53%, dropping from 75% in 2005 to 42% in 2006 and 2007. This sudden increase in the incidence of the disease was attributed to a higher standard that recently promoted administrators had to meet, and supported by anecdotal evidence from Another recent study [21] quoting some early admins who have expressed doubt that they would pass muster if their election (RfA) were held recently. In light of these developments the study argued that:

The process once called “no big deal” by the founder of Wikipedia has become a fairly big deal.

Significant factors affecting RfA outcome, numbers in parentheses are not statistically significant at p <.05 :

Factor 2006-2007 Pre-2006
Number of previous RfA attempts -14.7% -11.1%
Months since first edit 0.4% (0.2%)
Every 1000 article edits 1.8% (1.1%)
Every 1000 Wikipedia policy edits 19.6% (0.4%)
Every 1000 WikiProject edits 17.1% (7.2%)
Every 1000 article talk edits 6.3% 15.4%
Each Arb / mediation / wikiquette edit -0.1% -0.2%
Diversity score (see text) 2.8% 3.7%
Minor edits percentage 0.2% 0.2%
Edit summaries 0.5% 0.4%
“Thanks” in edit summaries 0.3% (0.0%)
“POV” in edit summaries 0.1% (0.0%)
Admin attention / noticeboard edits -0.1% (0.2%)

Contrary to expectations perhaps, “running” for administrator multiple times is detrimental to the candidate’s chance of success. Each subsequent attempt has a 14.8% lower chance of success than the previous one. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of the RfA project.

Wikipedia policy edit WikiProject edit is worth ten article edits. A relative observation is that candidates with experience in multiple areas of the site stood better chance of election. This was measured by the diversity score , a simple count of the number of areas that the editor has participated in. Wikipedia article in 16 areas: article, article talk, articles / categories / templates for deletion (XfD), (a) deletion review, etc. (See paper for full list). For instance, a user who has edited articles, and a once-and-for-all deletion would have a diversity of 3. Making a single edit in any additional region of Wikipedia correlated with a 2.8% increased likelihood of Success in gaining administratorship.

Making minor edits also helped, although the study authors consider that this may be so because minor edits correlate with experience. In contrast, each edit to an Arbitration or Mediation Committee page, or a Wikiquette, all of which have come for dispute resolution, decreases the likelihood of success by 0.1%. Posting messages to administrator has had a similarly deleterious effect. The study interpreted this as evidence that the editors involved in escalating or protracted conflicts lower their chances of becoming administrators.

Saying “thanks” or variations thereof in edit summaries, and pointing out points of view (“POV”) issues, also contributing to 0.3% and 0.1% to candidates Chances in 2006-2007, but did not reach statistical significance before.

A few factors that were found to be irrelevant or marginal at best:

  • Editing user pages (including one’s own) does not help. Somewhat surprisingly, user talk page edits also do not affect the likelihood of administratorship.
  • Welcoming newcomers or saying “please” in edit summaries had no effect.
  • Participating in consensus-building, such as RfA votes or the village pump, does not increase the likelihood of becoming admin. The study admits however that participation in consensus was measured quantitatively but not qualitatively.
  • Vandal-fighting as measured by the number of edicts to the vandalism. Every thousand edits containing variations of “revert” was positively correlated (7%) with adminship for 2006-2007, but did not attain statistical significance unless one is willing to lower the threshold to p <.1). More confusingly, before 2006 the number of reverts was negatively correlated (-6.8%) with adminship success, against without attaining statistical significance even at p <.1. This may be because of the introduction of a policy known as “3RR” in 2006 to reduce reverts. [22]

The study Suggests That Reviews some of the 25% unexplained variability in outcomes May be due to factors That Were not Measured, Such As quality of edits or participate in offsite coordination, Such As the (Explicitly Cited) secret mailing list Reported in The Register . [23] The paper concludes:

Merely performing a lot of production work is insufficient for “promotion” in Wikipedia. Candidates’ article edits were weak predictors of success. They also have demonstrated more managerial behavior. Widely used to predict the success of RfA success. Wikipedia is a bureaucracy [17] and that coordination work has increased substantially. [24] [25] … Participation in Wikipedia and WikiProjects was not predictive of adminship prior to 2006, suggesting the community as a whole to begin to prioritize policymaking and organization experience over simple article-level coordination.

Subsequent research by another group [26] . RfA Candidates is based on a shared interpretation of evidence in the wiki and histories of prior interactions.

Machine learning

Automated semantic knowledge extraction using machine learning algorithms is used to “extract machine-processable information at a relatively low complexity cost”. [27] DBpedia uses structured happy Extracted from infoboxes by machine learning algorithms to create a resource of linked data in a Semantic Web . [28]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a study published in PLoS ONE [29] researchers from Oxford Internet Institute and Central European University have shown that they are well correlated with the box office revenue of them. They have a mathematical model to predict the box office takings by analyzing the page counts as well as number of edits and unique editors of the Wikipedia pages on movies. [30] [31] In a related work published in Scientific Reports in 2013, [32]Helen Susannah Moat , Tobias Preis and colleagues demonstrated a link between changes in the number of views of the Wikipedia article relating to financial subjects and subsequent large stock market moves. [33] [34]


  1. Jump up^ S – tuckman, Jeff; Purtilo, James (2009). “Measuring the wikisphere”. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration . WikiSym ’09: 1. ISBN  978-1-60558-730-1 . Doi : 10.1145 / 1641309.1641326 .
  2. Jump up^ Priedhorsky, Reid; Chen, Jilin; Lam, Snider (Tony); Panciera, Katherine; Terveen, Loren; Austin, Shane (2007). “Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia”. Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Work Group . Conference on Supporting Group Work . ACM Press. pp. 259-268. ISBN  978-1-59593-845-9 . Doi : 10.1145 / 1316624.1316663 .
  3. Jump up^ Baker, Nicholson (2008-04-10). “How I fell in love with Wikipedia” . The Guardian . Retrieved 2010-11-29 .
  4. Jump up^ Chi, Ed; Kittur, Aniket; Pendleton, Bryan A .; Suh, Bongwon & Mytkowicz, Todd (2007-01-31). “Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie” (PDF) . Computer / Human Interaction 2007 Conference . Association for Computing Machinery . Retrieved 2017-04-23 .
  5. Jump up^ Goodwin, Jean. (2010). The authority of Wikipedia. In Juho Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference. Windsor, ON, Canada: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.CD-ROM.24 pp.
  6. Jump up^ Graham, Mark (2009-11-12). “Mapping the Geographies of Wikipedia Content” . Mark Graham: Blog . ZeroGeography . Retrieved 2009-11-16 .
  7. Jump up^ Gabrilovich, Evgeniy; Markovitch, Shaul (2007). “Computing Semantic Relatedness using Wikipedia-based Explicit Semantic Analysis”. Proceedings of IJCAI . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. pp. 1606-1611. CiteSeerX  .
  8. Jump up^ Zesch, Torsten; Müller, Christoph; Gurevych, Iryna (2008). “Extracting Lexical Semantic Knowledge from Wikipedia and Wiktionary” (PDF) . Proceedings of the Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) .
  9. Jump up^ M Strube; SP Ponzetto (2006). “WikiRelate! Computing semantic relatedness using Wikipedia psu.edu” (PDF) . Proceedings of the National Conference.
  10. Jump up^ Laurent, MR; Vickers, TJ (2009). “Seeking Health Information Online: Does Wikipedia Matter?” . Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association . 16 (4): 471-479. PMC  2705249  . PMID  19390105 . Doi : 10.1197 / jamia.M3059 .
  11. Jump up^ Heilman, JM; Kemmann, E; Bonert, M; Chatterjee, A; Ragar, B; Beards, GM; Iberri, DJ; Harvey, M; Thomas, B; Stomp, W; Martone, MF; Lodge, DJ; Vondracek, A; De Wolff, JF; Liber, C; Grover, SC; Vickers, TJ; Meskó, B; Laurent, MR (Jan 31, 2011). “Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion.” . Journal of medical Internet research . 13 (1): e14. PMC  3221335  . PMID  21282098 . Doi : 10.2196 / jmir.1589 .
  12. Jump up^ Bill Tancer (2007-04-25). “Who’s Really Participating in Web 2.0” . Time Magazine . Archived from the original on 30 April 2007 . Retrieved 2007-04-30 .
  13. Jump up^ Sumi, R .; Yasseri, T .; Rung, A .; Kornai, A .; Kertesz, J. (1 October 2011). “Edit Wars in Wikipedia” : 724-727. Doi :10.1109 / PASSAT / SocialCom.2011.47 – via IEEE Xplore.
  14. Jump up^ “Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia”. PLoS ONE . 7 : e38869. Bibcode : 2012PLoSO … 738869Y . arXiv : 1202.3643  . Doi :10.1371 / journal.pone.0038869 .
  15. Jump up^ Török, J; Iñiguez, G; Yasseri, T; San Miguel, M; Kaski, K; Kertész, J. “Opinions, Conflicts, and Consensus: Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative Environment”. Physical Review Letters . 110 : 088701. Bibcode : 2013PhRvL.110h8701T . PMID  23473207 . arXiv : 1207.4914  . Doi : 10.1103 / PhysRevLett.110.088701 .
  16. Jump up^ Yasseri T .; Spoerri A .; Graham M .; Kertész J (2014). “The most controversial topics in Wikipedia: A multilingual and geographical analysis” (PDF) . Scarecrow Press . Retrieved 4 February 2014 .
  17. ^ Jump up to:b Butler, Brian; Joyce, Elizabeth; Pike, Jacqueline (2008). “Do not look now, but we’ve created a bureaucracy”. Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems – CHI ’08 : 1101. doi : 10.1145 / 1357054.1357227 .
  18. Jump up^ Kriplean, Travis; Beschastnikh, Ivan; McDonald, David W .; Golder, Scott A. (2007). “Community, consensus, coercion, control”. Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Work Group – GROUP ’07 : 167. doi : 10.1145 / 1316624.1316648 .
  19. Jump up^ Burke, Moira; Kraut, Robert (2008). “Taking up the mop”. Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems – CHI ’08 : 3441. doi : 10.1145 / 1358628.1358871 .
  20. Jump up^ Stumpf, SA; London, M. (1981). “Capturing rater policies in evaluating candidates for promotion”. The Academy of Management Journal . 24 (4): 752-766. Doi : 10.2307 / 256174.
  21. Jump up^ Forte, A., and Bruckman, A. Scaling consensus: Increasing decentralization in Wikipedia governance. Proc. HICSS 2008.
  22. Jump up^ WP: 3RRandWP: EW, fonts which prevent repetitive reverting.
  23. Jump up^ Metz, Cade. “Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia” . The Register.
  24. Jump up^ Kittur, Aniket; Suh, Bongwon; Pendleton, Bryan A .; Chi, Ed H. (2007). “He says, she says: conflict and coordination in Wikipedia”. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing . Association for Computing Machinery: 453-462. ISBN  978-1-59593-593-9 . Doi : 10.1145 / 1240624.1240698 .
  25. Jump up^ Viegas, Fernanda B .; Wattenberg, Martin; Kriss, Jesse; Van Ham, Frank (2007). “Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia”. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science . IEEE Xplore Digital Library: 575-582. Doi :10.1109 / HICSS.2007.511 .
  26. Jump up^ Derthick, K., P. Tsao, T. Kriplean, A. Borning, M. Zachry, and DW McDonald (2011). Collaborative Sensemaking in Permission Granting in Wikipedia. In AA Ozok and P. Zaphiris (Eds.): Online Communities, HCII 2011, LNCS 6778, pp. 100-109.
  27. Jump up^ Baeza-Yates, Ricardo; King, Irwin, eds. (2009). Weaving services and people on the World Wide Web . Springer. ISBN  9783642005695 . LCCN  2009926100 .
  28. Jump up^ Yu, Liyang (2011). A Developer’s Guide to the Semantic Web . Springer. ISBN  9783642159695 . Doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-642-15970-1 .
  29. Jump up^ Márton Mestyán; Taha Yasseri; János Kertész (2013). “Early Prediction of Movie Box Office Success Based on Wikipedia Activity Big Data” . PLoS ONE . 8 : e71226. Bibcode :2013PLoSO … 871226Mr . PMC  3749192  . PMID  23990938 . arXiv : 1211.0970  . Doi : 10.1371 / journal.pone.0071226 .
  30. Jump up^ “Wikipedia buzz predicts blockbuster movies ‘takings weeks before release’ . The Guardian . Nov 8, 2012 . Retrieved Sep 2,2013 .
  31. Jump up^ “Using Wikipedia To Predict The Box Office Of A Movie” . Forbes . Nov 9, 2012 . Retrieved Sep 2, 2013 .
  32. Jump up^ Helen Susannah Moat; Chester Curme; Adam Avakian; Dror Y. Kenett; H. Eugene Stanley; Tobias Preis (2013). “Quantifying Wikipedia Usage Patterns Before Stock Market Moves”. Scientific Reports . 3 : 1801. Bibcode : 2013NatSR … 3E1801M . Doi :10.1038 / srep01801 .
  33. Jump up^ “Wikipedia’s crystal ball” . Financial Times . May 10, 2013 . Retrieved August 10, 2013 .
  34. Jump up^ Kadhim Shubber (May 8, 2013). “Wikipedia page views could predict stock market changes” . Wired.com . Retrieved August 10, 2013 .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *