Wikipedia/Bibliography: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John R. Brews (NY Times article) |
imported>John R. Brews (→Commentary: fringe views) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
*{{cite web |title=The Story Behind a Wikipedia Entry |author=Nick Bilton |publisher=New York Times |work=BITS: Business, Innovation, Technology and Society |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/the-backstory-of-wikipedias-take-on-the-iraq-war/ |date=September 9, 2010 |accessdate=2011-10-29}} An article discussing the insight provided by subpages in WP articles. | *{{cite web |title=The Story Behind a Wikipedia Entry |author=Nick Bilton |publisher=New York Times |work=BITS: Business, Innovation, Technology and Society |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/the-backstory-of-wikipedias-take-on-the-iraq-war/ |date=September 9, 2010 |accessdate=2011-10-29}} An article discussing the insight provided by subpages in WP articles. | ||
*{{cite web |title=On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’ |author=Naom Cohen |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=On%20Wikipedia,%209/11%20Dissent%20Is%20Kept%20on%20the%20Fringe&st=cse |date=September 11, 2011 |work=Business Day Media and Advertising: Link by link |publisher=New York Times |accessdate=2011-10-29}} An article discussing how fringe views are handled on Wikipedia using the example of the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center . | |||
Revision as of 13:42, 29 October 2011
- Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner. For formatting, consider using automated reference wikification.
Papers
- Priedhorsky, R., J. Chen, S.K. Lam, K. Panciera, L. Terveen and J. Riedl (2007) 'Creating, destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia'. Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work.
- A widely cited and debated study which compared the accuracy of 42 entries each in the English Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, concluding that both had similar numbers of factual errors.
- Jim Giles (15 December 2005). "Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head". Nature 438: pp. 900-901.
- Supplementary information to accompany Nature news article “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”. Nature (22 December 2005). Retrieved on 2011-10-28.
- Response by Encyclopedia Brittanica
- Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc. (March 2006). Retrieved on 2011-10-28..
- Nature's return salvo:
- Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica (March 30, 2006). Retrieved on 2011-10-28.
Books
- Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, Ben Yates (2008). How Wikipedia works: and how you can be a part of it. No Starch Press. ISBN 159327176X. A detailed discussion of how WP works, including the arbitration processes. Some subsidiary web links are found here.
- John Broughton (2008). Wikipedia: the missing manual. O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN 0596515162. A "how-to" manual that besides mechanics of use, includes sections on dispute resolution over both content (Chapter 10: Resolving content disputes) and personal attacks (Chapter 11: Handling incivility and personal attacks).
- Andrew Lih (2009). The Wikipedia revolution: How a bunch of nobodies created the world's greatest encyclopedia. London: Aurum. ISBN 9781845134730. Forward by Jimmy Wales. An enthusiast's attempt at a history of Wikipedia, faulted for some gaffes by reviewers on Amazon.
- Dan Woods, Peter Thoeny (2007). “Chapter 4: Using and improving the 800-pound gorilla of wikis, Wikipedia”, Wikis for dummies. Wiley, pp. 81 ff. ISBN 0470043997. A basic "how-to" manual for readers and first-time contributors.
Statistics and trends
- Benjamin Mako Hill (February 6, 2011). Editor-to-Reader Ratios on Wikipedia. Copyrighteous. Retrieved on 2011-10-27. This article states that since 2008 the number of active editors has decreased 12%, while the proportion of readers that edit at least five times a month has dropped 42%.
- Community health. Interviews/Summary of interviews. Wikimedia: Strategic planning (2009). Retrieved on 2011-10-27. A summary of opinion that the WP community is becoming more isolated and hostile to newcomers with time, and inventing its own jargon, creating a "tiny priesthood that can edit".
Commentary
- Nick Bilton (September 9, 2010). The Story Behind a Wikipedia Entry. BITS: Business, Innovation, Technology and Society. New York Times. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. An article discussing the insight provided by subpages in WP articles.
- Naom Cohen (September 11, 2011). On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’. Business Day Media and Advertising: Link by link. New York Times. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. An article discussing how fringe views are handled on Wikipedia using the example of the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center .