Difference between revisions of "Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia"
(infobox) |
(+ embed code) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Embed == | ||
| + | === Wikipedia Quality === | ||
| + | <code> | ||
| + | <nowiki> | ||
| + | Towne, W. Ben; Kittur, Aniket; Kinnaird, Peter; Herbsleb, James D.. (2013). "[[Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia]]".DOI: 10.1145/2441776.2441896. | ||
| + | </nowiki> | ||
| + | </code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | === English Wikipedia === | ||
| + | <code> | ||
| + | <nowiki> | ||
| + | {{cite journal |last1=Towne |first1=W. Ben |last2=Kittur |first2=Aniket |last3=Kinnaird |first3=Peter |last4=Herbsleb |first4=James D. |title=Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia |date=2013 |doi=10.1145/2441776.2441896 |url=https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Your_Process_is_Showing:_Controversy_Management_and_Perceived_Quality_in_Wikipedia}} | ||
| + | </nowiki> | ||
| + | </code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | === HTML === | ||
| + | <code> | ||
| + | <nowiki> | ||
| + | Towne, W. Ben; Kittur, Aniket; Kinnaird, Peter; Herbsleb, James D.. (2013). &quot;<a href="https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Your_Process_is_Showing:_Controversy_Management_and_Perceived_Quality_in_Wikipedia">Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia</a>&quot;.DOI: 10.1145/2441776.2441896. | ||
| + | </nowiki> | ||
| + | </code> | ||
Revision as of 14:06, 22 December 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.
Embed
Wikipedia Quality
Towne, W. Ben; Kittur, Aniket; Kinnaird, Peter; Herbsleb, James D.. (2013). "[[Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia]]".DOI: 10.1145/2441776.2441896.
English Wikipedia
{{cite journal |last1=Towne |first1=W. Ben |last2=Kittur |first2=Aniket |last3=Kinnaird |first3=Peter |last4=Herbsleb |first4=James D. |title=Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia |date=2013 |doi=10.1145/2441776.2441896 |url=https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Your_Process_is_Showing:_Controversy_Management_and_Perceived_Quality_in_Wikipedia}}
HTML
Towne, W. Ben; Kittur, Aniket; Kinnaird, Peter; Herbsleb, James D.. (2013). "<a href="https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Your_Process_is_Showing:_Controversy_Management_and_Perceived_Quality_in_Wikipedia">Your Process is Showing: Controversy Management and Perceived Quality in Wikipedia</a>".DOI: 10.1145/2441776.2441896.
