Publication Type: Session Paper
Abstract: Wikipedia opens some key challenges of knowledge production to scholarly scrutiny. The process of reconciliation of knowledge claims is very public because each article has a connected talk page, where users are able to discuss edits, make comments and debate various aspects of the article. Wikipedia attempts to produce content with a neutral point of view (NPOV) and editors often agree on the facts because sufficient sources (especially mainstream media) provide corroboration. Nonetheless many debates arise and the entire process is rife with value judgments. To explore the negotiation of truth in Wikipedia, two controversial and active articles were selected: “Iraq War” and “George W. Bush.” This analysis shows Wikipedia editors to be constantly grappling with such problems as finding an authorial voice and perspective that will be accepted by others as “neutral” and dealing with the values that always lurk just below the surface on any discussion of “the facts.”

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The World Wide Web continues to grow closer to achieving the vision of becoming the repository of all human knowledge. While improved search engines such as Google facilitate access of knowledge across the Web, some sites have increased in popularity and have attracted the attention of more Web users than others. Wikipedia is one such site that is becoming an important resource for news and information. It is an online information source that is increasingly used as the first, and sometimes only, stop for online encyclopedic information.

Much discussion has dealt with the accuracy of information on Wikipedia. While accuracy is important, that is not what this project is measuring. Using a method employed by Tankard and Royal (2005) to judge completeness of Web content, completeness of information on Wikipedia is assessed. What we found was that some topics were covered more comprehensively than others and that predictors of these biases included recency, importance, population, and financial wealth.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The current interpretation of emergence theory, especially when applied to collaboration mediated by computer technologies, neglects the fact that emergence might involve, rather than solve, ambiguity and conflicts. Emergence can become a plausible social theory directly applicable to Internet collaborative technologies only in so far as it allows for contradiction, conflict and ambiguity to be not the opposite but intrinsic characteristics of the emergence process. This is illustrated through analysis of the manner in which Wikipedia active members and leaders think about emergence and of the debates that surround Wikipedia’s central policy, that of the neutral point of view. In both instances, we argue, conflict leads to ambiguization.

Publication Type: Session Paper
Abstract: Wikipedia's policy discussions are a rich site for analyzing the deliberative process as members of the online community propose, revise, and discuss policies that guide their interactions. In the wiki environment, group members not only debate the proposed policies, but are also actively involved in crafting the policy itself. We offer examples of direct and indirect measures of deliberation in Wikipedia policy making discussions. Direct measures include content analysis to assess the extent to which discussions exhibit aspects of deliberative discourse. Indirect measures involve social network analysis of the interaction structure, and participants' characteristics such as their edit history, length of time involved in Wikipedia, type of contributions, awards (or sanctions) received, and formal positions of authority. Combining the direct and indirect measures give scholars more nuanced understandings of the deliberative process in a wiki environment by addressing issues of status, reputation, and influence that have implications for forum design.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: On-line platforms for socially generated content, such as Wikipedia, allow everyone to contribute and remove the contributions of others. This presents a trade-off: on the one hand, content improves quickly and mistakes are eliminated; on the other hand, deletion of content deprives its authors of the intrinsic pleasure of contributing and seeing their work in print, which may lead them to stop participating. We suggest that this trade-off is attenuated by the social structure around contributors. We hypothesize that actors involved in high density and high encapsulation structures will be least likely to abandon contributing. Analysis of the pattern of contributions to Wikipedia supports this assertion. The results underscore the importance of tight social structure for the success of collaborative content projects.