Difference between revisions of "(Don’T) Mention the War: a Comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica Articles on National Histories"
(New work - (Don’T) Mention the War: a Comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica Articles on National Histories) |
(+ wikilinks) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''(Don’T) Mention the War: a Comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica Articles on National Histories''' - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2018, written by Anna Samoilenko, Florian Lemmerich, Maria Zens, Mohsen Jadidi, Mathieu Génois and Markus Strohmaier. | + | '''(Don’T) Mention the War: a Comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica Articles on National Histories''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2018, written by [[Anna Samoilenko]], [[Florian Lemmerich]], [[Maria Zens]], [[Mohsen Jadidi]], [[Mathieu Génois]] and [[Markus Strohmaier]]. |
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
| − | In this paper authors present a large-scale quantitative comparison between expert- and crowdsourced writing of history by analysing articles from the English Wikipedia and Britannica. In order to quantify attention to particular periods, authors extract mentioned year numbers and utilise them to study historical timelines of nations stretched over the last thousand years. By combining this temporal analysis with lexical analysis of both encyclopedic corpora authors can identify distinctive historiographic points of view in each encyclopedia. Authors find that Britannica focuses on social and cultural phenomena, e.g. religion, as well as the geographical characteristics of states, while Wikipedia puts emphasis on political aspects, concentrating on wars and violent conflicts, and events of high popularity. Finally, both encyclopedias exhibit characteristics of English Academic prose, with Britannica being slightly less readable compared to Wikipedia, according to several readability scores. | + | In this paper authors present a large-scale quantitative comparison between expert- and crowdsourced writing of history by analysing articles from the [[English Wikipedia]] and Britannica. In order to quantify attention to particular periods, authors extract mentioned year numbers and utilise them to study historical timelines of nations stretched over the last thousand years. By combining this temporal analysis with lexical analysis of both encyclopedic corpora authors can identify distinctive historiographic points of view in each encyclopedia. Authors find that Britannica focuses on social and cultural phenomena, e.g. religion, as well as the geographical characteristics of states, while [[Wikipedia]] puts emphasis on political aspects, concentrating on wars and violent conflicts, and events of high popularity. Finally, both encyclopedias exhibit characteristics of English Academic prose, with Britannica being slightly less readable compared to Wikipedia, according to several [[readability]] scores. |
Revision as of 11:50, 16 September 2019
(Don’T) Mention the War: a Comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica Articles on National Histories - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2018, written by Anna Samoilenko, Florian Lemmerich, Maria Zens, Mohsen Jadidi, Mathieu Génois and Markus Strohmaier.
Overview
In this paper authors present a large-scale quantitative comparison between expert- and crowdsourced writing of history by analysing articles from the English Wikipedia and Britannica. In order to quantify attention to particular periods, authors extract mentioned year numbers and utilise them to study historical timelines of nations stretched over the last thousand years. By combining this temporal analysis with lexical analysis of both encyclopedic corpora authors can identify distinctive historiographic points of view in each encyclopedia. Authors find that Britannica focuses on social and cultural phenomena, e.g. religion, as well as the geographical characteristics of states, while Wikipedia puts emphasis on political aspects, concentrating on wars and violent conflicts, and events of high popularity. Finally, both encyclopedias exhibit characteristics of English Academic prose, with Britannica being slightly less readable compared to Wikipedia, according to several readability scores.
