Difference between revisions of "Individual Versus Collaborative Information Processing: the Case of Biases in Wikipedia"

From Wikipedia Quality
Jump to: navigation, search
(Individual Versus Collaborative Information Processing: the Case of Biases in Wikipedia - basic info)
 
(Links)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Individual Versus Collaborative Information Processing: the Case of Biases in Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2016, written by Aileen Oeberst, Ulrike Cress, Mitja D. Back and Steffen Nestler.
+
'''Individual Versus Collaborative Information Processing: the Case of Biases in Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2016, written by [[Aileen Oeberst]], [[Ulrike Cress]], [[Mitja D. Back]] and [[Steffen Nestler]].
  
 
== Overview ==
 
== Overview ==
Psychology has accumulated ample evidence for the notion that individual information processing is biased. Little is known, however, about “collective biases.” The chapter presented here takes the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a sample of an outlet for socially negotiated, “collective” representation of events and elaborates on two biases in Wikipedia articles. The first investigation is into whether hindsight bias—the tendency to overestimate in hindsight what was known in foresight—is present in Wikipedia articles about certain events (e.g., the nuclear disaster of Fukushima). Authors next present evidence for another bias, namely, the biased representations of intergroup conflicts (e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) in the respective language versions of Wikipedia (e.g., Hebrew, Arabic). Although findings indicate that Wikipedia is not free from bias, they do not suggest that these biases are universal (i.e., in all articles). Moreover, it remains an open question whether the biases authors identified under collaborative circumstances (i.e., in Wikipedia) compare in magnitude to individual biases or whether they are attenuated or even possibly amplified in the process of collaboration. Authors discuss this issue with a view to potential necessary preconditions for collective biases and possible countermeasures.
+
Psychology has accumulated ample evidence for the notion that individual information processing is biased. Little is known, however, about “collective biases.” The chapter presented here takes the online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] as a sample of an outlet for socially negotiated, “collective” representation of events and elaborates on two biases in Wikipedia articles. The first investigation is into whether hindsight bias—the tendency to overestimate in hindsight what was known in foresight—is present in Wikipedia articles about certain events (e.g., the nuclear disaster of Fukushima). Authors next present evidence for another bias, namely, the biased representations of intergroup conflicts (e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) in the respective [[language versions]] of Wikipedia (e.g., Hebrew, Arabic). Although findings indicate that Wikipedia is not free from bias, they do not suggest that these biases are universal (i.e., in all articles). Moreover, it remains an open question whether the biases authors identified under collaborative circumstances (i.e., in Wikipedia) compare in magnitude to individual biases or whether they are attenuated or even possibly amplified in the process of collaboration. Authors discuss this issue with a view to potential necessary preconditions for collective biases and possible counter[[measures]].

Revision as of 00:17, 9 June 2019

Individual Versus Collaborative Information Processing: the Case of Biases in Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2016, written by Aileen Oeberst, Ulrike Cress, Mitja D. Back and Steffen Nestler.

Overview

Psychology has accumulated ample evidence for the notion that individual information processing is biased. Little is known, however, about “collective biases.” The chapter presented here takes the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a sample of an outlet for socially negotiated, “collective” representation of events and elaborates on two biases in Wikipedia articles. The first investigation is into whether hindsight bias—the tendency to overestimate in hindsight what was known in foresight—is present in Wikipedia articles about certain events (e.g., the nuclear disaster of Fukushima). Authors next present evidence for another bias, namely, the biased representations of intergroup conflicts (e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) in the respective language versions of Wikipedia (e.g., Hebrew, Arabic). Although findings indicate that Wikipedia is not free from bias, they do not suggest that these biases are universal (i.e., in all articles). Moreover, it remains an open question whether the biases authors identified under collaborative circumstances (i.e., in Wikipedia) compare in magnitude to individual biases or whether they are attenuated or even possibly amplified in the process of collaboration. Authors discuss this issue with a view to potential necessary preconditions for collective biases and possible countermeasures.