Difference between revisions of "Making Peripheral Participation Legitimate: Reader Engagement Experiments in Wikipedia"
(+ wikilinks) |
(Infobox work) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Infobox work | ||
| + | | title = Making Peripheral Participation Legitimate: Reader Engagement Experiments in Wikipedia | ||
| + | | date = 2013 | ||
| + | | authors = [[Aaron Halfaker]]<br />[[Oliver Keyes]]<br />[[Dario Taraborelli]] | ||
| + | | doi = 10.1145/2441776.2441872 | ||
| + | | link = https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2441776.2441872 | ||
| + | }} | ||
'''Making Peripheral Participation Legitimate: Reader Engagement Experiments in Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2013, written by [[Aaron Halfaker]], [[Oliver Keyes]] and [[Dario Taraborelli]]. | '''Making Peripheral Participation Legitimate: Reader Engagement Experiments in Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2013, written by [[Aaron Halfaker]], [[Oliver Keyes]] and [[Dario Taraborelli]]. | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
Open collaboration communities thrive when participation is plentiful. Recent research has shown that the [[English Wikipedia]] community has constructed a vast and accurate information resource primarily through the monumental effort of a relatively small number of active, volunteer editors. Beyond [[Wikipedia]]'s active editor community is a substantially larger pool of potential participants: readers. In this paper authors describe a set of field experiments using the Article Feedback Tool, a system designed to elicit lightweight contributions from Wikipedia's readers. Through the lens of social learning theory and comparisons to related work in open bug tracking software, authors evaluate the costs and benefits of the expanded participation model and show both qualitatively and quantitatively that peripheral contributors add value to an open collaboration community as long as the cost of identifying low quality contributions remains low. | Open collaboration communities thrive when participation is plentiful. Recent research has shown that the [[English Wikipedia]] community has constructed a vast and accurate information resource primarily through the monumental effort of a relatively small number of active, volunteer editors. Beyond [[Wikipedia]]'s active editor community is a substantially larger pool of potential participants: readers. In this paper authors describe a set of field experiments using the Article Feedback Tool, a system designed to elicit lightweight contributions from Wikipedia's readers. Through the lens of social learning theory and comparisons to related work in open bug tracking software, authors evaluate the costs and benefits of the expanded participation model and show both qualitatively and quantitatively that peripheral contributors add value to an open collaboration community as long as the cost of identifying low quality contributions remains low. | ||
Revision as of 21:54, 2 August 2019
Authors | Aaron Halfaker Oliver Keyes Dario Taraborelli |
|---|---|
Publication date | 2013 |
DOI | 10.1145/2441776.2441872 |
Links | Original |
Making Peripheral Participation Legitimate: Reader Engagement Experiments in Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2013, written by Aaron Halfaker, Oliver Keyes and Dario Taraborelli.
Overview
Open collaboration communities thrive when participation is plentiful. Recent research has shown that the English Wikipedia community has constructed a vast and accurate information resource primarily through the monumental effort of a relatively small number of active, volunteer editors. Beyond Wikipedia's active editor community is a substantially larger pool of potential participants: readers. In this paper authors describe a set of field experiments using the Article Feedback Tool, a system designed to elicit lightweight contributions from Wikipedia's readers. Through the lens of social learning theory and comparisons to related work in open bug tracking software, authors evaluate the costs and benefits of the expanded participation model and show both qualitatively and quantitatively that peripheral contributors add value to an open collaboration community as long as the cost of identifying low quality contributions remains low.
