“…Wikipedia has been discussed for the new way in which it creates and disseminates knowledge (Hartelius, 2010) as well as for issues relating to the creation and maintenance of high quality content (Hara; Shachaf; Hew, 2010), including sources of references (Rodríguez-Mateos; Hernández-Pérez, 2018), and the motivations of its volunteers (Yang;Lai, 2010). The lack of female contributors has been a topic of concern (Ford; Wajcman, 2017).…”
How to cite this article: Thelwall, Mike (2020). "Why are some websites researched more than others? A review of research into the global top twenty". El profesional de la información, v. 29, n. 1, e290101.
“…Wikipedia has been discussed for the new way in which it creates and disseminates knowledge (Hartelius, 2010) as well as for issues relating to the creation and maintenance of high quality content (Hara; Shachaf; Hew, 2010), including sources of references (Rodríguez-Mateos; Hernández-Pérez, 2018), and the motivations of its volunteers (Yang;Lai, 2010). The lack of female contributors has been a topic of concern (Ford; Wajcman, 2017).…”
How to cite this article: Thelwall, Mike (2020). "Why are some websites researched more than others? A review of research into the global top twenty". El profesional de la información, v. 29, n. 1, e290101.
“…Although many of the reservations are understandable, there is also an obvious elephant in the room: Wikipedia challenges the established model of distribution of knowledge and the traditional authority of academia (Eijkman, ; O'Neil, ). The Internet as a medium generally redefines the role of authority and expertise (Battles, ), as well as collaborative work practices (Ciesielska & Petersen, ), but Wikipedia, in particular, directly questions the dominant knowledge elites and their monopoly on knowledge dissemination (Hartelius, ). As Clay Shirky observes: In fact what Wikipedia presages is a change in the nature of authority.…”
Section: Common View Of Academics On Wikipediamentioning
In this opinion piece, we would like to present a short literature review of perceptions and reservations towards Wikipedia in academia, address the common questions about overall reliability of Wikipedia entries, review the actual practices of Wikipedia usage in academia, and conclude with possible scenarios for a peaceful coexistence. Because Wikipedia is a regular topic of JASIST publications (Lim, 2009; Meseguer‐Artola, Aibar, Lladós, Minguillón, & Lerga, ; Mesgari, Okoli, Mehdi, Nielsen, & Lanamäki, ; Okoli, Mehdi, Mesgari, Nielsen, & Lanamäki, ), we hope to start a useful discussion with the right audience.
“…However, if, according to him, in traditional adhocracies, individuals are bound by rules that cannot be altered; at Wikipedia, by contrast, there is no rule that cannot be altered if the community so desires, beside the main iron rules (the ve pillars), seemingly. In addition to that, in Wikipedia's adhocracy, the editors not only capture opportunities, but they also can create those opportunities, since editors can change all policies and so enjoy an unprecedented degree of empowerment (something stressed by Hansen et al, 2009;Hartelius, 2010;Pster, 2011). More studies should be pursued to see if this model is a new implementation of the global adhocracy model or if falls in the model proposed by Mintzberg and McHugh (1985).…”
This article proposes a review of the literature analyzing Wikipedia as a collective system for producing knowledge. 1 Introduction. Wikipedia project is one of the tremendous successful project of knowledge production ever, with more than 3.5 million articles for the English version and nearly one million visits per day 2 by researchers (Ortega, 2009). From an Information System research point of view, this example of open knowledge projects should provide useful information on how structuring online open knowledge project for it to succeed 4 , but also for internal organization's projects, as rms are institutions created to allow collaboration (Simon, 1957; March and Simon, 1958), and even dened by Grant (1996) as "institution for integrating knowledge [of its members]. And regarding this function, the wiki tool, allowing distant and sequential collaboration around a structured document seems to be very promising (Hasan and Pfa, 2006a,c,b). It also, for libraries, a new platform to stock information and knowledge resources, to to promote digital collection and thus to reach new users (Pressley and McCallum, 2008), and today a prominent source of online information, notably for health (Laurent and Vickers, 2009), where false information may have dramatic consequences. But to be used as a model, how the model works is needed to be better understood. This is need for internal purpose too: the Wikipedia project managers may want to monitor the activity: is the English Wikipedia more ecient than the French one, or are projects (portals) more or less ecient, more or less productive, is there a minimal, an optimal number of editors for an article 5 ? And, to quote Crowston et al. (2006, p. 124), to be able to learn from teams that are working well, we need to have a denition of`working well'. To do so, we rst rely on the literature of Information System, but also on the literature of knowledge common, to propose a framework of how the elements interact. Then, we propose are review of the existing literature on how Wikipedia works. 2 Theoretical contributions. 2.1 Research questions. There are numerous research articles dealing with Wikipedia (7029 articles in the science direct base on October 20 th), notably because this encyclopedia is used as a test base in information and 4 Even if the comparison between dierent industries must be done very carefully, as shown by Müller-Seitz and Reger (2009) on the comparison between open-source with Open Source car and Wikipedia projects. 5 For research questions pointed by the Wikimedia foundation, which support the Wikipedia project, see http: //meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index. 2 Theoretical contributions. 3 language processing systems 6 and information retrieval tasks (Buriol et al., 2006). This socio-technical project (Bryant et al., 2005; Benker and Nissenbaum, 2006), where the tools used and the rules mediate and shape user activity around open collaborative writing, can be seen as a community of practice (Hara et al., 2010), or even as an aggregation of multiple co...
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.
