Mapping the backbone of the Humanities through the eyes of Wikipedia

Torres‐Salinas, Daniel; Frías, Esteban Romero; Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.002

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A sizeable portion of citations on Wikipedia refer to scientific literature [40]. Consequently, Wikipedia is a fundamental gateway to scientific results and enables the public understanding of science [33,34,38,51,61]. The chance of a scientific reference being cited on Wikipedia varies with the impact factor of the publication venue and its open-access availability [58].…”

Section: Science In Wikipediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia

Piccardi

Реди

Colavizza

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the Web and a common source of information for many users. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia was not conceived as a source of original information, but as a gateway to secondary sources: according to Wikipedia's guidelines, facts must be backed up by reliable sources that reflect the full spectrum of views on the topic. Although citations lie at the heart of Wikipedia, little is known about how users interact with them. To close this gap, we built client-side instrumentation for logging all interactions with links leading from English Wikipedia articles to cited references during one month, and conducted the first analysis of readers' interactions with citations. We find that overall engagement with citations is low: about one in 300 page views results in a reference click (0.29% overall; 0.56% on desktop; 0.13% on mobile). Matched observational studies of the factors associated with reference clicking reveal that clicks occur more frequently on shorter pages and on pages of lower quality, suggesting that references are consulted more commonly when Wikipedia itself does not contain the information sought by the user. Moreover, we observe that recent content, open access sources, and references about life events (births, deaths, marriages, etc.) are particularly popular. Taken together, our findings deepen our understanding of Wikipedia's role in a global information economy where reliability is ever less certain, and source attribution ever more vital.

show abstract

Section: Science In Wikipediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia

Piccardi

Реди

Colavizza

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Altmetric provides Wikipedia citation data relying on known identifiers 6 . Despite this limitation, Altmetric data have been previously used to map Wikipedia's use of scientific articles (Arroyo-Machado et al, 2020;Torres-Salinas, Romero-Frías, & Arroyo-Machado, 2019;Zahedi et al, 2014), especially because citations from Wikipedia are considered a possible measure of impact (Kousha & Thelwall, 2017;Sugimoto, Work, et al, 2017). Publications from the full list above are queried using the Altmetric API by DOI or PMID.…”

Section: Auxiliary Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 research in Wikipedia

Colavizza

2020

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wikipedia is one of the main sources of free knowledge on the Web. During the first few months of the pandemic, over 5,200 new Wikipedia pages on COVID-19 have been created and have accumulated over 400M pageviews by mid June 2020.1 At the same time, an unprecedented amount of scientific articles on COVID-19 and the ongoing pandemic have been published online. Wikipedia's contents are based on reliable sources such as scientific literature. Given its public function, it is crucial for Wikipedia to rely on representative and reliable scientific results, especially so in a time of crisis. We assess the coverage of COVID-19-related research in Wikipedia via citations to a corpus of over 160,000 articles. We find that Wikipedia editors are integrating new research at a fast pace, and have cited close to 2% of the COVID-19 literature under considera- tion. While doing so, they are able to provide a representative coverage of COVID-19-related research. We show that all the main topics discussed in this literature are proportionally represented from Wikipedia, after accounting for article-level effects. We further use regression analyses to model citations from Wikipedia and show that Wikipedia editors on average rely on literature which is highly cited, widely shared on social media, and has been peer-reviewed.

show abstract

“…These different concepts where recently combined and applied to Wikipedia by Torres-Salinas, Romero-Frías and Arroyo-Machado [26] and tested in the field of the Humanities by mapping specialties and journals. The present study uses Wikipedia to draw a social representation of scientific knowledge and the areas into which it is divided.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Pathfinder algorithm [36] has been applied as a pruning method following a common configuration (r=∞, q=n-1) that reduces the networks to a minimum covering tree. This algorithm-successfully applied in the field of Library and Information Sciences [26,37]-keeps only the strongest co-citation links between all pairs of nodes and offers a diaphanous view of large networks. Given the huge amount of co-citations, especially between journals, we use this technique to prune them in order to make the networks more explanatory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks

Arroyo-Machado¹,

Torres‐Salinas²,

Herrera‐Viedma³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provides an overview of science from the Wikipedia perspective. A methodology has been established for the analysis of how Wikipedia editors regard science through their references to scientific papers. The method of co-citation has been adapted to this context in order to generate Pathfinder networks (PFNET) that highlight the most relevant scientific journals and categories, and their interactions in order to find out how scientific literature is consumed through this open encyclopaedia. In addition to this, their obsolescence has been studied through Price index. A total of 1 433 457 references available at Altmetric.com have been initially taken into account. After pre-processing and linking them to the data from Elsevier's CiteScore Metrics the sample was reduced to 847 512 references made by 193 802 Wikipedia articles to 598 746 scientific articles belonging to 14 149 journals indexed in Scopus. As highlighted results we found a significative presence of "Medicine" and "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology" papers and that the most important journals are multidisciplinary in nature, suggesting also that high-impact factor journals were more likely to be cited. Furthermore, only 13.44% of Wikipedia citations are to Open Access journals.

show abstract

Mapping the backbone of the Humanities through the eyes of Wikipedia

Cited by 13 publications

References 25 publications

Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia

Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia

COVID-19 research in Wikipedia

Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About