Difference between revisions of "Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia"
(Links) |
(infobox) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Infobox work | ||
| + | | title = Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia | ||
| + | | date = 2013 | ||
| + | | authors = [[W. Ben Towne]]<br />[[Aniket Kittur]]<br />[[Peter Kinnaird]]<br />[[James D. Herbsleb]] | ||
| + | | doi = 10.1145/2441776.2441896 | ||
| + | | link = http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441776.2441896 | ||
| + | }} | ||
'''Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2013, written by [[W. Ben Towne]], [[Aniket Kittur]], [[Peter Kinnaird]] and [[James D. Herbsleb]]. | '''Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2013, written by [[W. Ben Towne]], [[Aniket Kittur]], [[Peter Kinnaird]] and [[James D. Herbsleb]]. | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
Large-scale collaboration systems often separate their content from the deliberation around how that content was produced. Surfacing this deliberation may engender trust in the content generation process if the deliberation process appears fair, well-reasoned, and thorough. Alternatively, it could encourage doubts about content quality, especially if the process appears messy or biased. In this paper authors report the results of an experiment where authors found that surfacing deliberation generally led to decreases in perceptions of quality for the article under consideration, especially - but not only - if the discussion revealed conflict. The effect size depends on the type of editors' interactions. Finally, this decrease in actual [[article quality]] rating was accompanied by self-reported improved perceptions of the article and [[Wikipedia]] overall. | Large-scale collaboration systems often separate their content from the deliberation around how that content was produced. Surfacing this deliberation may engender trust in the content generation process if the deliberation process appears fair, well-reasoned, and thorough. Alternatively, it could encourage doubts about content quality, especially if the process appears messy or biased. In this paper authors report the results of an experiment where authors found that surfacing deliberation generally led to decreases in perceptions of quality for the article under consideration, especially - but not only - if the discussion revealed conflict. The effect size depends on the type of editors' interactions. Finally, this decrease in actual [[article quality]] rating was accompanied by self-reported improved perceptions of the article and [[Wikipedia]] overall. | ||
Revision as of 16:09, 20 October 2019
Authors | W. Ben Towne Aniket Kittur Peter Kinnaird James D. Herbsleb |
|---|---|
Publication date | 2013 |
DOI | 10.1145/2441776.2441896 |
Links | Original |
Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2013, written by W. Ben Towne, Aniket Kittur, Peter Kinnaird and James D. Herbsleb.
Overview
Large-scale collaboration systems often separate their content from the deliberation around how that content was produced. Surfacing this deliberation may engender trust in the content generation process if the deliberation process appears fair, well-reasoned, and thorough. Alternatively, it could encourage doubts about content quality, especially if the process appears messy or biased. In this paper authors report the results of an experiment where authors found that surfacing deliberation generally led to decreases in perceptions of quality for the article under consideration, especially - but not only - if the discussion revealed conflict. The effect size depends on the type of editors' interactions. Finally, this decrease in actual article quality rating was accompanied by self-reported improved perceptions of the article and Wikipedia overall.
