Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:198285 [] For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a qualitative study of software engineers' playful behaviors at work. Design/methodology/approach -The interviewed software engineers come from two European and three American companies. The research is based on ethnographical data, gathered in two longitudinal studies 2005-2008. The methods used in the study include open-ended unstructured interviews, participant observations, stories collection, and shadowings. Findings -It is found that the currently dominant theory of normative control explaining software engineers workplace diminishes leisure and entertainment attributes of knowledge work. Fun at workplace is discovered to be an important, if not crucial, element of everyday programmers' job.Originality/value -The study contributes to the literature by replying to the call for more research on high-tech organizational practices, and on non-job related behaviors at workplace. It reveals playful performance as a constituent for knowledge work and may contribute towards a better understanding of the role played by fun and playful behavior in creative problem-solving and inventing.

No abstract

This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of the number of images, references, internal links, external links, words, and characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that high‐quality standards in information presentation are not globally shared and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines what is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic knowledge are not globally agreed‐upon and “objective” but local and very subjective.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show the limits of a-hierarchical organization in the Wikimedia movement governance model. Wikimedia governance, as well as the dynamic transformations it is currently undergoing, remains to be covered by the literature on organization and management studies; yet, they exemplify the problems with the “organization of the future,” which is highly idealized throughout the management literature. Design/methodology/approach – The research design relies on an ethnographic, long-term, participative study of the Wikipedia community at large. The methods used rely mainly on discourse analysis and interviews. The study benefits from the unique participant immersion of the researcher (who spent six years participating in the studied community, making over five edits each day on average, and being elected to several positions of highest trust within the organization). Findings – The findings show that the open, participative, and democratic character of the organization, which in theory is oriented toward sustainable solidarity, as well as the semi-anonymous character of some of the members’ identities, makes the community more empowered yet more belligerent. Also, the entirely open and flat governance model makes it more difficult to establish a stable leadership consensus. Research limitations/implications – Research is limited due to its methodological design, as it relies on in-depth qualitative case studies, rather than wider analysis. Further quantitative research is needed to confirm the findings on a bigger scale and in other open collaboration organizations. Practical implications – The findings show that participative organizational design, especially in open collaboration projects, have adverse effects in leading to overly confrontational and quarrelsome organizational culture, which not only makes decision making more difficult, but also deters people less used to debating and conflict. Social implications – The social implications of the findings suggest that even in highly democratized structures, some minimal forms of leadership, and governance are useful to facilitate the decision-making processes. Originality/value – This paper extends the understanding of organizational dynamics and governance in open collaboration organizations, and exposes the shortcomings of this model, which are an inevitable trade-off for its indisputable benefits.

In this opinion piece, we would like to present a short literature review of perceptions and reservations towards Wikipedia in academia, address the common questions about overall reliability of Wikipedia entries, review the actual practices of Wikipedia usage in academia, and conclude with possible scenarios for a peaceful coexistence. Because Wikipedia is a regular topic of JASIST publications (Lim, 2009; Meseguer‐Artola, Aibar, Lladós, Minguillón, & Lerga, ; Mesgari, Okoli, Mehdi, Nielsen, & Lanamäki, ; Okoli, Mehdi, Mesgari, Nielsen, & Lanamäki, ), we hope to start a useful discussion with the right audience.

Information related to the COVID-19 pandemic ranges from biological to bibliographic, from geographical to genetic and beyond. The structure of the raw data is highly complex, so converting it to meaningful insight requires data curation, integration, extraction and visualization, the global crowdsourcing of which provides both additional challenges and opportunities. Wikidata is an interdisciplinary, multilingual, open collaborative knowledge base of more than 90 million entities connected by well over a billion relationships. It acts as a web-scale platform for broader computer-supported cooperative work and linked open data, since it can be written to and queried in multiple ways in near real time by specialists, automated tools and the public. The main query language, SPARQL, is a semantic language used to retrieve and process information from databases saved in Resource Description Framework (RDF) format. Here, we introduce four aspects of Wikidata that enable it to serve as a knowledge base for general information on the COVID-19 pandemic: its flexible data model, its multilingual features, its alignment to multiple external databases, and its multidisciplinary organization. The rich knowledge graph created for COVID-19 in Wikidata can be visualized, explored, and analyzed for purposes like decision support as well as educational and scholarly research.

BackgroundWikipedia, the multilingual encyclopedia, was founded in 2001 and is the world’s largest and most visited online general reference website. It is widely used by health care professionals and students. The inclusion of journal articles in Wikipedia is of scholarly interest, but the time taken for a journal article to be included in Wikipedia, from the moment of its publication to its incorporation into Wikipedia, is unclear.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the ranking of the most cited journals by their representation in the English-language medical pages of Wikipedia. In addition, we evaluated the number of days between publication of journal articles and their citation in Wikipedia medical pages, treating this measure as a proxy for the information-diffusion rate.MethodsWe retrieved the dates when articles were included in Wikipedia and the date of journal publication from Crossref by using an application programming interface.ResultsFrom 11,325 Wikipedia medical articles, we identified citations to 137,889 journal articles from over 15,000 journals. There was a large spike in the number of journal articles published in or after 2002 that were cited by Wikipedia. The higher the importance of a Wikipedia article, the higher was the mean number of journal citations it contained (top article, 48.13 [SD 33.67]; lowest article, 6.44 [SD 9.33]). However, the importance of the Wikipedia article did not affect the speed of reference addition. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most cited journal by Wikipedia, followed by The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. The multidisciplinary journals Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences were among the top 10 journals with the highest Wikipedia medical article citations. For the top biomedical journal papers cited in Wikipedia's medical pages in 2016-2017, it took about 90 days (3 months) for the citation to be used in Wikipedia.ConclusionsWe found evidence of “recentism,” which refers to preferential citation of recently published journal articles in Wikipedia. Traditional high-impact medical and multidisciplinary journals were extensively cited by Wikipedia, suggesting that Wikipedia medical articles have robust underpinnings. In keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing reviews/secondary sources in preference to primary sources, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most referenced journal.

Abstract