Alternative interfaces for deletion discussions in Wikipedia

Schneider, Jodi; Samp, Krystian

doi:10.1145/2462932.2462972

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the Wikipedia Signpost recently commented 15 , long discussions "often present a challenge to the editor who steps up to close them; 'no consensus' is a common outcome for convoluted debates, a lack of resolution that opens the possibility of discussion starting all over again as the same issues continue to arise." Based on the decision factors presented in this work, we preparing a tool aimed at debate closers, that summarizes the decision factors in a debate and organizes comments by decision factor [30].…”

Section: Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deletion discussions in Wikipedia

Schneider

Passant

Decker

2012

Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deletion of articles is a common process in Wikipedia, in order to ensure the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Yet, there is a need to better understand the procedures in order to promote the best decisions without unnecessary community work. In this paper, we study deletion in Wikipedia, drawing from factor analysis, and taking an in-depth, content-analysis-based approach. We address three research questions: First, what factors contribute to the decision about whether to delete a given article? Second, when multiple factors are given, what is the relative importance of those factors? Third, what are the outcomes of deletion discussions, both for articles and for the community? We find that multiple factors contribute to the assessment of an article, and we discuss their relative frequency. Further, we show how the assessment timeline focuses attention on improving borderline articles that have the potential to meet Wikipedia's content inclusion policies, and we highlight the role of novice contributors in this improvement process.

show abstract

Section: Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%