In this paper we describe the initial outcomes of the Reconcile 1 study concerning Web content credibility evaluations. The study was run with a balanced sample of 1503 respondents who independently evaluated 154 web pages from several thematic categories. Users taking part in the study not only evaluated credibility, but also filled a questionnaire covering additional respondents' traits. Using the gathered information about socioeconomic status and psychological features of the users, we studied the influence of subjectivity and bias in the credibility ratings. Subjectivity and bias, in fact, represent a key design issue for Web Credibility systems, to the extent that they could jeopardize the system performance if not taken into account.We found out that evaluations of Web content credibility are slightly subjective. On the other hand, the evaluations exhibit a strong acquiescence bias.
Wikipedia admins are editors entrusted with special privileges and duties, responsible for the community management of Wikipedia. They are elected using a special procedure defined by the Wikipedia community, called Request for Adminship (RfA). Because of the growing amount of management work (quality control, coordination, maintenance) on the Wikipedia, the importance of admins is growing. At the same time, there exists evidence that the admin community is growing more slowly than expected. We present an analysis of the RfA procedure in the Polish-language Wikipedia, since the procedure's introduction in 2005. With the goal of discovering good candidates for new admins that could be accepted by the community, we model the admin elections using multidimensional behavioral social networks derived from the Wikipedia edit history. We find that we can classify the votes in the RfA procedures using this model with an accuracy level that should be sufficient to recommend candidates. We also propose and verify interpretations of the dimensions of the social network. We find that one of the dimensions, based on discussion on Wikipedia talk pages, can be validly interpreted as acquaintance among editors, and discuss the relevance of this dimension to the admin elections.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.