Difference between revisions of "Is It Good to Be Like Wikipedia?: Exploring the Trade-Offs of Introducing Collaborative Editing Model to Q&A Sites"
(Wikilinks) |
(Infobox) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Infobox work | ||
| + | | title = Is It Good to Be Like Wikipedia?: Exploring the Trade-Offs of Introducing Collaborative Editing Model to Q&A Sites | ||
| + | | date = 2015 | ||
| + | | authors = [[Guo Li]]<br />[[Haiyi Zhu]]<br />[[Tun Lu]]<br />[[Xianghua Ding]]<br />[[Ning Gu]] | ||
| + | | doi = 10.1145/2675133.2675155 | ||
| + | | link = http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=2675155&type=pdf | ||
| + | }} | ||
'''Is It Good to Be Like Wikipedia?: Exploring the Trade-Offs of Introducing Collaborative Editing Model to Q&A Sites''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2015, written by [[Guo Li]], [[Haiyi Zhu]], [[Tun Lu]], [[Xianghua Ding]] and [[Ning Gu]]. | '''Is It Good to Be Like Wikipedia?: Exploring the Trade-Offs of Introducing Collaborative Editing Model to Q&A Sites''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2015, written by [[Guo Li]], [[Haiyi Zhu]], [[Tun Lu]], [[Xianghua Ding]] and [[Ning Gu]]. | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
Online question and answer (Q&A) sites, which are platforms for users to post and answer questions on a wide range of topics, are becoming large repositories of valuable knowledge and important to societies. In order to sustain success, Q&A sites face the challenges of ensuring content quality and encouraging user contributions. This paper examines a particular design decision in Q&A sites-allowing [[Wikipedia]]-like collaborative editing on questions and answers, and explores its beneficial effects on content quality and potential detrimental effects on users' contributions. By examining five years' archival data of [[Stack Overflow]], authors found that the benefits of collaborative editing outweigh its risks. For example, each substantive edit from other users can increase the number of positive votes by 181% for the questions and 119% for the answers. On the other hand, each edit only decreases askers and answerers' subsequent contributions by no more than 5%. This work has implications for understanding and designing large-scale social computing systems. | Online question and answer (Q&A) sites, which are platforms for users to post and answer questions on a wide range of topics, are becoming large repositories of valuable knowledge and important to societies. In order to sustain success, Q&A sites face the challenges of ensuring content quality and encouraging user contributions. This paper examines a particular design decision in Q&A sites-allowing [[Wikipedia]]-like collaborative editing on questions and answers, and explores its beneficial effects on content quality and potential detrimental effects on users' contributions. By examining five years' archival data of [[Stack Overflow]], authors found that the benefits of collaborative editing outweigh its risks. For example, each substantive edit from other users can increase the number of positive votes by 181% for the questions and 119% for the answers. On the other hand, each edit only decreases askers and answerers' subsequent contributions by no more than 5%. This work has implications for understanding and designing large-scale social computing systems. | ||
Revision as of 05:45, 29 January 2021
Authors | Guo Li Haiyi Zhu Tun Lu Xianghua Ding Ning Gu |
|---|---|
Publication date | 2015 |
DOI | 10.1145/2675133.2675155 |
Links | Original |
Is It Good to Be Like Wikipedia?: Exploring the Trade-Offs of Introducing Collaborative Editing Model to Q&A Sites - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2015, written by Guo Li, Haiyi Zhu, Tun Lu, Xianghua Ding and Ning Gu.
Overview
Online question and answer (Q&A) sites, which are platforms for users to post and answer questions on a wide range of topics, are becoming large repositories of valuable knowledge and important to societies. In order to sustain success, Q&A sites face the challenges of ensuring content quality and encouraging user contributions. This paper examines a particular design decision in Q&A sites-allowing Wikipedia-like collaborative editing on questions and answers, and explores its beneficial effects on content quality and potential detrimental effects on users' contributions. By examining five years' archival data of Stack Overflow, authors found that the benefits of collaborative editing outweigh its risks. For example, each substantive edit from other users can increase the number of positive votes by 181% for the questions and 119% for the answers. On the other hand, each edit only decreases askers and answerers' subsequent contributions by no more than 5%. This work has implications for understanding and designing large-scale social computing systems.
