Was bedeutet 11.882 Bearbeitungen? Die qualitative Inhaltsanalyse zur Untersuchung des Entstehungsprozesses von Wikipedia-Artikeln

Der Wikipedia-Artikel „Deutschland“ ist trotz 11.882 Bearbeitungen kein als exzellent oder lesenswert ausgezeichneter Artikel. Man kann dementsprechend davon ausgehen, dass er im Sinne der Wikipedia-Qualitätskriterien nicht besonders hochwertig ist. Dieses Beispiel dient als Aufhänger für die Frage, ob und inwiefern Zusammenhänge zwischen der Anzahl und Art von Bearbeitungen und der Qualität von Beiträgen existieren. Was bedeutet eine Bearbeitung eines Wikipedia-Artikels hinsichtlich der Qualität des Beitrags und welche Aspekte sind bei der Untersuchung dieses Zusammenhangs wichtig? Um diese Frage zu adressieren, wurde eine explorative Studie in Form einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse von sechs Wikipedia-Artikeln durchgeführt. Der Artikel stellt den methodischen Ansatz dieser Studie sowie deren Ergebnisse dar.What does high edit count mean and which aspects are important when analyzing the evolution of Wikipedia articles? This paper discusses methods and approaches to investigate relations between the evolution of Wikipedia articles and their quality. Results of a first exploratory analysis which focuses on a qualitative in-depth categorization of an article's history are presented

Was bedeutet 11.882 Bearbeitungen? Die qualitative Inhaltsanalyse zur Untersuchung des Entstehungsprozesses von Wikipedia-Artikeln

Der Wikipedia-Artikel „Deutschland“ ist trotz 11.882 Bearbeitungen kein als exzellent oder lesenswert ausgezeichneter Artikel. Man kann dementsprechend davon ausgehen, dass er im Sinne der Wikipedia-Qualitätskriterien nicht besonders hochwertig ist. Dieses Beispiel dient als Aufhänger für die Frage, ob und inwiefern Zusammenhänge zwischen der Anzahl und Art von Bearbeitungen und der Qualität von Beiträgen existieren. Was bedeutet eine Bearbeitung eines Wikipedia-Artikels hinsichtlich der Qualität des Beitrags und welche Aspekte sind bei der Untersuchung dieses Zusammenhangs wichtig? Um diese Frage zu adressieren, wurde eine explorative Studie in Form einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse von sechs Wikipedia-Artikeln durchgeführt. Der Artikel stellt den methodischen Ansatz dieser Studie sowie deren Ergebnisse dar.What does high edit count mean and which aspects are important when analyzing the evolution of Wikipedia articles? This paper discusses methods and approaches to investigate relations between the evolution of Wikipedia articles and their quality. Results of a first exploratory analysis which focuses on a qualitative in-depth categorization of an article's history are presented

Wikipedia as a Translation Zone: A heterotopic analysis of the online encyclopedia and its collaborative volunteer translator community

Recent research has highlighted the emergence and proliferation of online communities of volunteer translators whose intensely collaborative activities are largely facilitated by the participatory and interactive nature of new networked communication technologies. Much of the discussion regarding these forms of web-based translation has tended to focus on what brings individuals together to give up their time, skills and effort when co-operating within such prosumer-led projects. By contrast, this paper presents a case study focused on the construction of the English Wikipedia article about Tokyo in order to argue that it is important for translation scholars to additionally take into account the difficult processes of fierce conflict and debate which often characterise interactions within such communities. It does so by means of the spatial mode of analysis encouraged by Foucault’s writings on ‘heterotopia’, demonstrating how this conceptual method can be applied to explain and explore the multifaceted negotiations that occur in this environment

Wikipedia, Translation and the Collaborative Production of Spatial Knowledge(s): A socio-narrative analysis

This article explores the significance and complexity of the role translation plays in the production of knowledge within the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. It positions this investigation within a growing body of research into the user-generated site as a prominent new arena for the social construction of reality, before critiquing the ways translation has so far been conceptualized in this context. It focuses on the English-language Wikipedia "Paris" page, using a socio-narrative approach. This analysis reveals translation to be inextricably bound up in the processes of knowledge production, dissemination, and negotiation through which content is collaboratively created within the world's most popular reference work

Reputation assessment in collaborative environments.

The popularity of open collaboration platforms is strongly related to the popularity of Internet: the growing of the latter (in technology and users) is a spring to the former. With the advent of Web 2.0, not only the Internet users became from passive receiver of published content to active producer of content, but also active reviewers and editors of content. With the increase of popularity of these platforms, some new interesting problems arise related on how to choose the best one, how to choose the collaborators and how evaluate the quality of the final work. This evolution has brought much benefit to the Internet community, especially related to the availability of free content, but also gave rise to the problem of how much this content, or these people, may be trusted. The purpose of this thesis is to present different reputation systems suitable for collaborative environments; to show that we must use very different techniques to obtain the best from the data we are dealing with and, eventually, to compare reputations systems and recommender systems and show that, under some strict circumstances, they become similar enough and we can just make minor adjustment to one to obtain the other

Reputation assessment in collaborative environments.

The popularity of open collaboration platforms is strongly related to the popularity of Internet: the growing of the latter (in technology and users) is a spring to the former. With the advent of Web 2.0, not only the Internet users became from passive receiver of published content to active producer of content, but also active reviewers and editors of content. With the increase of popularity of these platforms, some new interesting problems arise related on how to choose the best one, how to choose the collaborators and how evaluate the quality of the final work. This evolution has brought much benefit to the Internet community, especially related to the availability of free content, but also gave rise to the problem of how much this content, or these people, may be trusted. The purpose of this thesis is to present different reputation systems suitable for collaborative environments; to show that we must use very different techniques to obtain the best from the data we are dealing with and, eventually, to compare reputations systems and recommender systems and show that, under some strict circumstances, they become similar enough and we can just make minor adjustment to one to obtain the other

Reputation assessment in collaborative environments.

The popularity of open collaboration platforms is strongly related to the popularity of Internet: the growing of the latter (in technology and users) is a spring to the former. With the advent of Web 2.0, not only the Internet users became from passive receiver of published content to active producer of content, but also active reviewers and editors of content. With the increase of popularity of these platforms, some new interesting problems arise related on how to choose the best one, how to choose the collaborators and how evaluate the quality of the final work. This evolution has brought much benefit to the Internet community, especially related to the availability of free content, but also gave rise to the problem of how much this content, or these people, may be trusted. The purpose of this thesis is to present different reputation systems suitable for collaborative environments; to show that we must use very different techniques to obtain the best from the data we are dealing with and, eventually, to compare reputations systems and recommender systems and show that, under some strict circumstances, they become similar enough and we can just make minor adjustment to one to obtain the other

Investigating and Supporting Sensemaking within Online Health Communities

This dissertation focuses on understanding and supporting individual and collective sensemaking within online health communities (OHCs). This major goal was achieved in three aims. In Aim 1, this dissertation contributes a rich descriptive account of collective sensemaking in OHCs forums by describing how it occurs and develops, what triggers it, what elements constitute collective construction of meaning, and what conversational moves positively contribute to this process. Further, it describes how collective sensemaking in OHCs is impacted by the interplay between informational and socio-emotional needs of OHCs members. Moreover, it examines how design of different social computing platforms influences OHCs members’ ability to meet their informational and socio-emotional needs and engage in collective sensemaking. In Aim 2, this dissertation explores the design space of tools for supporting individual sensemaking through optimized information access. Through the design and evaluation of a prototype DisVis it examines the impact of such tools on OHCs members’ ability to understand information within discussion threads. In the final Aim 3, this dissertation proposes a novel approach for meeting the three main needs identified in Aims 1 and 2: promoting individual sensemaking, while at the same time encouraging collective sensemaking, and facilitating development of social awareness and ties among community members. The design and evaluation of the novel solution for visualizing discussion threads that synergistically addresses these three needs—dSense—provides insights for future research and design of interactive solutions for supporting individual and collective sensemaking within OHCs

What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s).

This article proposes a review of the literature analyzing Wikipedia as a collective system for producing knowledge. JEL Classification: L39, L86, H41, D7

Debating the European Union transnationally:Wikipedians’ construction of the EU on a Wikipedia talk page (2001-2015)

This thesis deals with the construction of the European Union (EU) as negotiated among contributors to the English Wikipedia between 2001 and 2015. It focuses on the Talk Page (TP) which accompanies the Wikipedia article on the EU and provides a space for Wikipedia contributors to discuss controversial issues regarding the article. The EU has received considerable attention in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), addressing e.g. questions regarding language policy and discourses surrounding topics connected to the EU (e.g. Muntigl, Weiss, & Wodak, 2000; Unger, Krzyżanowski, & Wodak, 2014; Wodak, 2007a). However, private individuals’ attempts to make sense of the EU when facing the task of defining it have hardly been touched upon. In this context, Wikipedia constitutes an ideal repository of data as it has recorded debates on the institution since 2001. Taking a corpus-assisted approach (cf. Baker, 2006), I examine how contributors from various backgrounds have grappled with their understanding of the EU. Additionally, this study explores aspects of Wikipedia since this collaboratively created encyclopaedia has received little research attention. Taking the EU on Wikipedia as a starting point, this thesis presents a foray into how Wikipedia can be approached from a CDS perspective. That is, on the one hand, it identifies central aspects of this website’s structure and addresses policies that guide Wikipedia operations and thus shape Wikipedia data. On the other hand, it examines the site’s societal impact/relevance and evaluates to what extent it can function as a transnational public sphere.Findings suggest that a substantial part of discussions amongst Wikipedians addresses the classification of the EU along the continuum between confederation and unified country, depending on different views concerning member states’ sovereignty. Wikipedia’s policies and the nature of the debates further suggest that the TP can, to some extent, serve as a transnational public sphere