This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Academic studies about Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Before nominating it for deletion or adding content to it, please heed the rationale for creating this page:
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)
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)
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)
Did the editors writing it consult Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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
See: Unequality shown in the enforcement of 3rr
Permalink: [1]
Okip 12:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)rʨanaɢ ( talk) 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
- 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). — Paleo Neonate – 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. — Paleo Neonate – 12:41, 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 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)
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)
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)
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)