Timeline for Is it true that articles cited in Wikipedia get more citations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2018 at 18:12 | comment | added | Tgr | Wrt RCT by article writing, this study might be interesting (they did something similar to examine Wikipedia's effect on tourism). Also, Wikipedia editors' discussion of the study. | |
| Nov 14, 2018 at 17:38 | comment | added | JoshuaZ | @JeffE Possibly, but there's no ethical obligation to improve Wikipedia articles. So at best one is only contributing less to the project than one otherwise would have. There's also nothing stopping one after the study is over from going back and adding in the control articles. It isn't like anyone is advocating a study procedure where we remove random citations from Wikipedia. | |
| Nov 14, 2018 at 14:34 | comment | added | JeffE | @JoshuaZ But if the articles not being added to the control group are legitimate articles that reasonably should be cited, I’m sure at least some Wikipedians would object to the omission. | |
| Nov 14, 2018 at 3:10 | comment | added | JoshuaZ | If all the articles being added are legitimate articles that reasonably should be cited in the Wikipedia articles in question, I don't think most Wikipedians will mind. It might make sense to check with first with someone there, maybe on the Admin Noticeboard before running the experiment, but my guess is the response will not be negative. | |
| Nov 14, 2018 at 1:00 | comment | added | Ben | Confounders are not generally a problem for an RCT, so long as it is properly constructed. Indeed, that is the primary benefit of doing this as an RCT instead of an observational study. Whether such an experiment would breach ToS/ethics is a separate issue from its merits as a scientific experiment, but is a matter that would need to be considered in an appropriate ethics application. | |
| Nov 14, 2018 at 0:57 | comment | added | Trusly | That doesn't sound like a very good research project. There are a lot of confounds, and it is probably against wiki's ToS. | |
| Nov 13, 2018 at 22:56 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Nov 13, 2018 at 22:55 | comment | added | Ben | Well, I suppose this is what ethics committees are for. Anyway, I'm not sure they'd necessarily object, given that the research might potentially show the value of their platform to academic researchers. | |
| Nov 13, 2018 at 12:51 | comment | added | JeffE | I suspect Wikipedia might object to being used as a guinea pig. | |
| Nov 13, 2018 at 5:46 | history | answered | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |