Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Background With the COVID-19 pandemic’s outbreak, millions flocked to Wikipedia for updated information. Amid growing concerns regarding an “infodemic,” ensuring the quality of information is a crucial vector of public health. Investigating whether and how Wikipedia remained up to date and in line with science is key to formulating strategies to counter misinformation. Using citation analyses, we asked which sources informed Wikipedia’s COVID-19–related articles before and during the pandemic’s first wave (January–May 2020). Results We found that coronavirus-related articles referenced trusted media outlets and high-quality academic sources. Regarding academic sources, Wikipedia was found to be highly selective in terms of what science was cited. Moreover, despite a surge in COVID-19 preprints, Wikipedia had a clear preference for open-access studies published in respected journals and made little use of preprints. Building a timeline of English-language COVID-19 articles from 2001–2020 revealed a nuanced trade-off between quality and timeliness. It further showed how pre-existing articles on key topics related to the virus created a framework for integrating new knowledge. Supported by a rigid sourcing policy, this “scientific infrastructure” facilitated contextualization and regulated the influx of new information. Last, we constructed a network of DOI-Wikipedia articles, which showed the landscape of pandemic-related knowledge on Wikipedia and how academic citations create a web of shared knowledge supporting topics like COVID-19 drug development. Conclusions Understanding how scientific research interacts with the digital knowledge-sphere during the pandemic provides insight into how Wikipedia can facilitate access to science. It also reveals how, aided by what we term its “citizen encyclopedists,” it successfully fended off COVID-19 disinformation and how this unique model may be deployed in other contexts.

Wikipedia as a tool for contemporary history of science: A case study on CRISPR

“…For our purposes, these references constitute substance for additional analyses: combining quantitative bibliometric analyses like citation count, with a content-dependent evaluation of the actual sources, to better understand the types of references supporting the “anchor” article. Quantitatively, we have previously developed two bibliometric analyses for Wikipedia articles - the “SciScore”, which gauges the ratio of academic to non-academic sources (ranges 0-1) (Benjakob, Aviram, and Sobel 2022), and the “Latency”, which gauges the duration between an academic paper’s publication and when it was referenced in a Wikipedia article (Benjakob and Aviram 2018).…”

“…Issues of accuracy in the encyclopedia anyone could edit, along with “edit wars” between volatile editors, even became a topic of research (Wilson and Likens 2015)(Yasseri et al 2012)(Heather Ford 2020). In recent years however, this narrative has reversed: both academic research and the media have praised Wikipedia’s coverage and reliance on sources, which in some cases have been found to be in lock step with science (Jemielniak 2019)(Reagle and Koerner 2020)(Smith 2020), especially in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic (Benjakob, Aviram, and Sobel 2022)(Colavizza 2020).…”

Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications

“…When faced with the uncertainty of distinguishing sound scholarly publications, editors may leverage other features to help make decisions (Murray et al, 2019). Studies suggested that certain groups of scholarly publications are more likely to be cited by Wikipedia: Wikipedia prefers studies published in highly prestigious journals (Arroyo- Machado et al, 2020;Benjakob et al, 2022;MacHado et al, 2020;Nielsen, 2007). Publications in specific fields, for example, biomedical fields, are more cited than those in other fields (Arroyo-Machado et al, 2020;Teplitskiy et al, 2017).…”

“…Publications in specific fields, for example, biomedical fields, are more cited than those in other fields (Arroyo-Machado et al, 2020;Teplitskiy et al, 2017). A publication's open access (OA) status also increases its likelihood of being cited by Wikipedia (Benjakob et al, 2022;Teplitskiy et al, 2017). Wikipedia entries may have an inflated focus on recent events and tend to cite recent resources (Jemielniak et al, 2019;Sundin, 2011;Wikipedia, 2022a).…”

Gender and Country Biases in Wikipedia Citations to Scholarly Publications

“…Publications in specific fields, for example, biomedical fields, are more cited than those in other fields (Arroyo-Machado et al, 2020;Teplitskiy et al, 2017). A publication's open access (OA) status also increases its likelihood of being cited by Wikipedia (Benjakob et al, 2022;Teplitskiy et al, 2017). Wikipedia entries may have an inflated focus on recent events and tend to cite recent resources (Jemielniak et al, 2019;Sundin, 2011;Wikipedia, 2022a).…”