Talk:Academic studies about Wikipedia

Rationale for creating this page

Before nominating it for deletion or adding content to it, please heed the rationale for creating this page:

• Wikipedia is now important enough that various aspects of it have been the subject of several academic studies.
• There is a Wikipedia in culture page, but quantitative academic studies hardly fit in there.
• There is a Criticism of Wikipedia page, but academic studies, at least peer-reviewed ones, are usually about facts and seldom qualify as mere criticism.
• There is a Reliability of Wikipedia page, but there are quite a few recent academic studies about other aspects of Wikipedia, so they would be off-topic on that page.
• Finally, there (obviously) is a Wikipedia page, but that is an overview, and summarizing a bunch of papers there would make the page too long and would bias the discussion towards topics that may not be so interesting outside academia.

As a rule, restrict this page to peer-review articles as much as possible. If an article is mainly about Wikipedia's reliability, mention it in here, but detail it on the Reliability of Wikipedia page. If an article is mostly a position paper (opinion), with little empirical evidence to back it up, consider discussing it in Criticism of Wikipedia or Wikipedia in culture instead.

This article should be organized by topic. It should not simply be litany of papers and their abstracts. VasileGaburici (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Did I mention that Wikipedia is category keyword on ACM? VasileGaburici (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Has quite a few issues, mainly of an 'under construction' nature, but I don't see any reason not to keep it myself. Richard001 (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I added that template because I didn't want to write the lead section before I had reviewed a sufficient number of papers from the list so that the lead summarizes what aspects of Wikipedia were studied in academia. VG ☎ 09:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

How can wikipedia even claim basic NPOV on articles like this. Sure it's interesting, but are we to believe that wikipedia is neutral ? Suppose that wikipedia were racist (and I'm sure at least some contributions are), and an article were to claim such, is anyone seriously to believe it would be included here ? In government, in academia, even in the local youth movement and organisations are not considered to be neutral about themselves.

Wouldn't it be better to have a totally separate meta-site that did not share any control or personnel with wikipedia, and any meta discussion HAS to take place on the other site ? At least then a basic measure of impartiality could be justifiably claimed.

And no, I do *NOT* volunteer to run said site. I'm sure there's hardly a lack of candidates, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.27.177 (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting but

Did the editors writing it consult Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To a certain extent, I did. That list is a kitchen-sink of every paper that has some connection with Wikipedia. I selected articles that are mainly about Wikipedia, in the sense that they are descriptive and informative, rather than proposing a certain improvement or are using Wikipedia's database as test data for some generic theory. I don't have a lot of time to work on this in the next couple of months, so feel free to improve it. VG ☎ 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing categorisation

Something is missing here. I am now looking for a page on research on Wikipedia, and I know it is not this one, since the one I look for links to the German twin page (at least). Now, the point here is not that I cannot find a page, but that we should set up categories for research on Wikipedia. Trondtr (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC).

Organization issue

I don't see anything wrong with materials in the article (so I don't propose the deletion). But from the organization point of view, I don't think this is a way to go. We desperately need to create the Wikipedia community article, which, for one thing, would subsume Deletionism and inclusionism. Since the majority of this article "currently" discusses the social aspect, which I reckon has to do with the community, I propose we start the Wikipedia community article based on materials here (and Deletionism and inclusionism) and move other materials to elsewhere. Thoughts? -- Taku (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the current Wikipedia category organization is sufficient. So I prefer keeping this article as-is since I like that it's Academia-specific. And I think the current Wikipedia community section is fine as-is and readers can link to specific things like D&I for more info.

edit: I just looked at the pageview stats for Wikipedia and the other articles in the category. Not so surprisingly, the view count for the main article dwarfs that of any sub-articles. All the more reason, I think, to keep things as is, and the small percentage of people who want to further investigate sub-articles like this, D&I, reliability, etc. will do so. --Armchair info guy (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

if i was jimbo wales i would protect this article even from the admins and say wikipedia is rly good. why doesnt he do that? and pls dont revert this i wanna know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.222.73 (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Article in Harvard Education Review

This article in the Fall 2009 Issue of the Harvard Educational Review may be of relevance to this page:

High School Research and Critical Literacy: Social Studies With and Despite Wikipedia

Houman Harouni http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/742

Question about how contributors"consistently and successfully violate policy without sanction"

See: Unequality shown in the enforcement of 3rr

Permalink: [1]

Okip 12:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of much sourced information

Recently a lot of sourced material was removed. I reverted the change, and would appreciate a discussion here first. Okip 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright notice

Is there any value to:

(Copyright notice: This section makes use of extensive quotations from a paper, but most of the quotations are excerpts from Wikipedia itself, with user accounts anonymized.)

under the section "Power plays"? I would say not, so am removing it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

New article

• Tseng, Shu-Mei; Huang, Jiao-Sheng (in press). "The correlation between Wikipedia and knowledge sharing on job performance". Expert Systems with Applications. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.009. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's impact on education,

I have been meaning to add something about this article from the Fall 2009 issue of the Harvard Educational Review about the implications and potential of Wikipedia for education, but I'm not quite sure where it would fit:

High School Research and Critical Literacy: Social Studies With and Despite Wikipedia by Houman Harouni

^Abstract: Drawing on experiences in his social studies classroom, Houman Harouni evaluates both the challenges and possibilities of helping high school students develop critical research skills. The author describes how he used Wikipedia to design classroom activities that address issues of authorship, neutrality, and reliability in information gathering. The online encyclopedia is often lamented by teachers, scholars, and librarians, but its widespread use necessitates a new approach to teaching research. In describing the experience, Harouni concludes that teaching research skills in the contemporary context requires ongoing observations of the research strategies and practices students already employ as well as the active engagement of student interest and background knowledge.

see: http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/742

Can one of the editors find a good place for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.107.248 (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

research into influence of references on wikipedia

hello. I just stumbled upon this: http://www.websci11.org/fileadmin/websci/Posters/16_paper.pdf I'm super tired right now so I really can't be bothered to have a proper look to see if it's of any note for this article or if it's already been used, but thought I'd give you guys a quick heads up. Cya Coolug (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Move Tag

Someone left a move tag but did not leave any reason or description of what was required. The tag has been on for over a month so I am sure if the tagger wants to replace the tag then it would be equally ok to actually be bold and do the change. If not, then can you leave a bit of description and I will happily do it. Op47 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Namespaces

I don't know any policy or guideline supporting this, but I'm pretty sure linking to other namespaces (besides articles) within an article is bad form. There are a lot of links to Wikipedia: pages, and while I understand they help a potential reader understand the concept, I think they should be used sparingly if at all. I'd like to suggest someone exclude as many of these links as is reasonably possible, using any means they deem appropriate (a partial rewrite could be necessary). If you do know of any policy/guideline/consensus regarding this, either supporting or prohibiting the use of links to other namespaces, please enlighten me. If you disagree and believe the article should remain as it is, I am, as always, open to discussion. Thanks. Rutebega (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

COI

Is it appropriate to add mentions to one's own, peer-reviewed research to this page? Aleksi aaltonen (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Aleksi aaltonen Hello. I've moved your question under a new heading at the bottom per talk page custom in case others don't see it (I am not the most knowledgeable in this matter). For the Wikipedia policy on conflict-of-interest editing, please refer to WP:COI. As it states in this essay, you may add information from your own research, provided it is non-promotional in tone and has been published by a reliable third-party source. If you're careful, it should be fine – Wikipedia needs more expert editors. Welcome aboard, don't forget to be bold (but not reckless) and happy editing! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Research Newsletter

I'll keep good form and not add it myself, but I think that the page could benefit from the addition of a link to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter , where we cover hundreds of academic studies about Wikipedia each year with a team of reviewers from the Wikimedia community and from academia. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academic studies about Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0%2C8599%2C1614751%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120200727/http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/22_4/essays/002.html to http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/22_4/essays/002.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about including material

Colleagues. I have a question about what should be included in this article. I have become aware of a particular peer-reviewed article about Wikipedia, although I am not certain whether I should be citing this in this article. Are there any set criteria as to what ought and what ought not to be included in this article? Cheers, Research17 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I've yet to receive a response to the above question. The article I am thinking of is Brian Martin (2018) Persistent Bias in Wikipedia: Methods and Responses, Social Science Computer Review, 36(3), 379-388. (Published in the University of Wollongong Research Repository in 2017). This article has been widely cited by other researchers. I would be most interested if any editor has any objection to including a reference to this article here, and, if so, the reason for his/her objection. Regards, Research17 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Research17: It may be possible to get more input at WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. I recommend also specifying the context, i.e. in which article you intend to use it as citation. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Although the source is framed as an "academic study about Wikipedia", it is transparently just an extended complaint by one person about the article on themselves. I do not think it would enhance this article. Zero^talk 11:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• This should not be included. Martin has a fringe history (promoting AIDS denialism and antivaxers) and his paper is a naked bit of special pleading, presenting his view of what his article should say as unassailably neutral and assuming that any divergence from that is naked abuse, even though there is a wealth of RS criticism of him. It's suitable for the article on Martin per WP:ABOUTSELF but is not a legitimate scholarly review of Wikipedia policies, it's a rather blatant hit piece. As to "widely cited", {{citation needed}}. I've seen it referenced by cranks and grifters but again not in serious scholarly discourse. Google Scholar shows it cited by 9, including conference rpesentations and what appears to be people arguing against promotion of the "homosexual agenda". Guy (help!) 13:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree it should NOT be included. It is not in my opinion not a reliable published peer reviewed article. It is all about himself and was published in the local university series that publishes all the work of all the faulty & does not claim to be peer reviewed by anybody. It includes 275 of Martin's papers and talks--see ! the listing here.] He has not published on Wikipedia anmywhere else. See Judith Wilyman for his most notorious PhD student, with her dissertation promoting the anti-vaccine movement. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: You are quite wrong about the publication. It appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Social Science Computer Review, see here. However, my opinion remains that it is unsuitable for this article. While peer-reviewed academic journals get a reliability tick almost automatically, reliability is not the only criterion for inclusion. Zero^talk 22:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistake--sorry!! (the journal's history editor is a close personal friend of mine so I should have caught it) -- however it is still a primary source with a deep conflict of interest. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(Copying my comments on the topic from a user talk page):

I now noticed this after replying elsewhere to try RSN (at Talk:Academic studies about Wikipedia). One thing however is that since it is in relation to Wikipedia and his own article, this is considered a primary source with a conflict of interest. It may be possible to mention its existence in his article if consensus develops for it (that it's WP:DUE), but I doubt that it could be covered in detail (to cover it a secondary or tertiary source's interpretation of that paper would be best). —PaleoNeonate – 11:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding: (and it's already in the article with a quote that I still agree is acceptable per my comment at WP:FTN); I'll be glad to comment on it at RSN if it's eventually there for other purposes after the FTN discussion is over. —PaleoNeonate – 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Just some thoughts on some issues. 1. Conflict of interest. I've just looked again at the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest, and I believe his applies to editors. In other words, editors are discouraged from editing where they have an interest in the article. 2. Criticism of the article. Obviously a number of editors are highly critical of the content of article. However I am not so sure that this means that the article therefore should not be included in the list of academic studies on Wikipedia. Research17 (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that the WP:COI policy applied to the proposed source, but that it cannot be considered an independent reliable source because it's someone's opinion about their own article and Wikipedia (see WP:FRIND about "independent" for instance). If other reliable sources cite and discuss it significantly, giving legitimacy to Martin's claims, then at least we'd be able to use those to cover it from an independent perspective. It would be different to present his views as his opinions with attribution, rather than presenting them as neutral academic views, but I'll let other editors judge, I don't personally think it's WP:DUE outside of the BLP article. —PaleoNeonate – 10:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Since "a number of editors are highly critical of the content of article" is not among the reasons given for not including it, why would you argue that you are "not so sure that this means" we should not include it?

Maybe you want to invent more reasons nobody has brought forward and point out that they are also bad reasons? See Strawman argument and Chewbacca defense. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Suggestion: what is paleocentrism?

I am a translator of this article, and I have to guess what paleocentrism is. It is a topic used as an example of power plays here. Without a rough idea of what it is, it is sort of hard to translate well. Searching the web such as "what is paleocentrism" turns up "what is phallocentrism": humorous, but not helpful. It would be nice if a brief meaning is provided somwhere, of course without raising additional controversies. --Tikmok (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, it's in a quotation, so we'd best not edit it... but "paleo" means "ancient" in Greek, and "paleocentrism" means being centred or focussed on the ancient, presumably at the expense of the recent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you know if it's a scientific theory, or a scientific theory used to contrast with religious ideas? Thx.

• A scientific theory that says ancient phenomena have more impacts than the recent ones?
• A scientific theory that contrasts with some sort of "new earth" ideas? --Tikmok (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Newer research on Ortega vs. Newton hypothesis

I did a little research on if the idea that a small minority of editors do the majority of edits on Wikipedia (the Newton hypothesis). This article argues that the small amount of edits made by one-time editors makes up a significant and important part of editing. You can read more about it in this research newsletter. I don't have time to add the information now, but maybe I or someone else will in the future. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Studies should be independently notable for inclusion

This article seems to be a magnet for listing any academic study of Wikipedia, but just being a published study doesn't make a study notable. We should only be including studies that have been covered by independent reliable sources, thus ensuring they are notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

In this case it means that means publication in a peer reviewed scholarly or scientific journal. These studies are vetted by a series of experts and professional editors and that makes them good qualify for this page. "Notability" in Wikipedia is a criteria for creating a new article--it is not a criteria for inclusion in this sort of listing. Rjensen (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, as then we could justify creating laundry lists of every single academic article ever published about any topic, which is not what Wikipedia is for. We already have Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia which is meant to be an internal list of publications. For an encyclopedia article, we should focus on only those publications that have become particularly notable (not just publishable). I think this approach aligns with WP:LISTN and WP:LSC. Otherwise we are engaging in an arbitrary synthesis of primary sources. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Lack of any mention of political bias studies

There's bits about studies of other forms of bias, but nothing on political bias, which is a bit odd when studies on political bias in Wikipedia definitely exist. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)