Wikipedia - Ein Medium der Ignoranz?

Hammwöhner, Rainer

doi:10.14361/9783839407783-009

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…30–32, 50–52). The Wikipedia project itself offers a kind of laboratory for different knowledge access points that still need more research (Hammwöhner, 2007). In this article we omit the aspect of knowledge organization in an encyclopedia, which is an important quality criterion indeed as we focus on the quality of individual articles.…”

Section: A First Glance At the Prolonged Discussion On Quality Of Encmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the sighted research literature we could not identify a general agreed set of professionally accepted evaluation criteria and approaches; this applies to Wikipedia as well as to competing products. It was one important result of the debate on the controversial Nature study on Wikipedia that such a consensus still has to be agreed on (Hammwöhner, 2007). In this article we wish to make a contribution to this ongoing process.…”

Section: Towards a Heuristic Methods For Evaluating The Quality Of Encmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To increase the verifiability of Wikipedia, currently several projects are concerned with including different meta‐datasets and authority files (Danowski & Pfeifer, 2007). There is some evidence with regard to formal accuracy that Wikipedia is less reliable than comparable works (Hammwöhner, 2007; Hammwöhner, Fuchs, Kattenbeck, & Sax, 2007; Schlieker, 2005). However, it can be disputed whether the heuristic assumption that one can easily infer from a high number of orthographical mistakes an equally high number of factual mistakes is valid (Fallis, 2008, p. 1668).…”

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the academic evaluation of Wikipedia's quality is well‐received and a limited number of studies is cited, in most articles there is no consensus on the appropriate methods of evaluating encyclopedias and the results are hardly comparable, as they differ considerably regarding choice and number of evaluated articles, applied quality criteria, and method of evaluation (Hammwöhner, 2007).…”

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited: Fair ranking for reasonable quality?

Lewandowski

Spree

2010

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to review the fiercely discussed question of whether the ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines is justified by the quality of the articles. After an overview of current research on information quality in Wikipedia, a summary of the extended discussion on the quality of encyclopedic entries in general is given. On this basis, a heuristic method for evaluating Wikipedia entries is developed and applied to Wikipedia articles that scored highly in a search engine retrieval effectiveness test and compared with the relevance judgment of jurors. The quality discussion regarding Wikipedia-not only in the mainstream media-is, as Prillinger's statement illustrates, very much focused on aspects of correctness in form and content (Giles, 2005). This narrowing of the quality debate does not meet the requirements of the complex discussion on lexicographical quality in general. In this discussion, correctness is just one facet in a set of criteria. In this article we shed new light on the question of lexicographic quality as our pragmatic research question is whether the overall quality of the retrieved articles, correctness included, justifies its ranking, or, in other words, is the ranking of the articles appropriate to their usefulness for the user of the search engine? Our research is also to be seen in the larger context of adding transparency to the question of how search engines deal with Wikipedia entries. Encyclopedias are generally recommended as a starting point for information research. Does the ranking in Wikipedia articles do this view justice?To provide some contextual background we summarize briefly the current research on information quality in Wikipedia as well as the extended discussion on the quality of encyclopedic entries in general. On this basis, we develop our own heuristic method for evaluating Wikipedia entries.

show abstract

Section: A First Glance At the Prolonged Discussion On Quality Of Encmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Towards a Heuristic Methods For Evaluating The Quality Of Encmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited: Fair ranking for reasonable quality?

Lewandowski

Spree

2010

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From this perspective, it is no surprise that the web took a different development toward collaborative media as exemplified by Wikipedia. In any event, there are recent developments that aim at unifying the semantic web (Berners- Lee, Hendler, and Lassila, 2001) (see also Waltinger and Breuing (2012) in this volume) and wikis (Leuf and Cunningham, 2001) in terms of so called semantic wikis in order to allow for a kind of collaborative writing under the control of a semantic model as provided by semantic web technologies (Schaffert, Bischof, Bürger, Gruber, Hilzensauer, and Schaffert, 2006;Völkel, Krötzsch, Vrandecic, Haller, and Studer, 2006;Hammwöhner, 2007;Baer, Erbs, Zesch, and Gurevych, 2011). This may end up in a revival of notions of adaptive hypermedia under the header of the semantic web and Web 2.0 technologies.…”

Section: The Case Of Adaptable Hypermediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Handbook of Technical Communication

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge categorization affects popularity and quality of Wikipedia articles

Lerner

Lomi

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of a shared classification system is essential to knowledge production, transfer, and sharing. Studies of knowledge classification, however, rarely consider the fact that knowledge categories exist within hierarchical information systems designed to facilitate knowledge search and discovery. This neglect is problematic whenever information about categorical membership is itself used to evaluate the quality of the items that the category contains. The main objective of this paper is to show that the effects of category membership depend on the position that a category occupies in the hierarchical knowledge classification system of Wikipedia—an open knowledge production and sharing platform taking the form of a freely accessible on-line encyclopedia. Using data on all English-language Wikipedia articles, we examine how the position that a category occupies in the classification hierarchy affects the attention that articles in that category attract from Wikipedia editors, and their evaluation of quality of the Wikipedia articles. Specifically, we show that Wikipedia articles assigned to coarse-grained categories (i. e., categories that occupy higher positions in the hierarchical knowledge classification system) garner more attention from Wikipedia editors (i. e., attract a higher volume of text editing activity), but receive lower evaluations (i. e., they are considered to be of lower quality). The negative relation between attention and quality implied by this result is consistent with current theories of social categorization, but it also goes beyond available results by showing that the effects of categorization on evaluation depend on the position that a category occupies in a hierarchical knowledge classification system.

show abstract

Wikipedia - Ein Medium der Ignoranz?

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited: Fair ranking for reasonable quality?

Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited: Fair ranking for reasonable quality?

Handbook of Technical Communication

Knowledge categorization affects popularity and quality of Wikipedia articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About