Revision as of 17:38, March 10, 2013 by Emijrp (Text replace - "<h2> Datasets </h2> There is no datasets for this keyword. <h2> Tools </h2> There is no tools for this keyword. <br clear="all" /> <h2> Publications </h2> There is no publications with this keyword." to "")
(Alternative names for this keyword)
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of keywords|
experience is included as keyword or extra keyword in 0 datasets, 0 tools and 5 publications.
There is no datasets for this keyword.
There is no tools for this keyword.
|Title||Author(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|Education in Health Research Methodology: Use of a Wiki for Knowledge Translation||Hamm M.P.
|PLoS ONE||English||2013||Introduction:A research-practice gap exists between what is known about conducting methodologically rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and what is done. Evidence consistently shows that pediatric RCTs are susceptible to high risk of bias; therefore novel methods of influencing the design and conduct of trials are required. The objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a wiki designed to educate pediatric trialists and trainees in the principles involved in minimizing risk of bias in RCTs. The focus was on preliminary usability testing of the wiki.Methods:The wiki was developed through adaptation of existing knowledge translation strategies and through tailoring the site to the identified needs of the end-users. The wiki was evaluated for usability and user preferences regarding the content and formatting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 trialists and systematic reviewers, representing varying levels of experience with risk of bias or the conduct of trials. Data were analyzed using content analysis.Results:Participants found the wiki to be well organized, easy to use, and straightforward to navigate. Suggestions for improvement tended to focus on clarification of the text or on esthetics, rather than on the content or format. Participants liked the additional features of the site that were supplementary to the text, such as the interactive examples, and the components that focused on practical applications, adding relevance to the theory presented. While the site could be used by both trialists and systematic reviewers, the lack of a clearly defined target audience caused some confusion among participants.Conclusions:Participants were supportive of using a wiki as a novel educational tool. The results of this pilot test will be used to refine the risk of bias wiki, which holds promise as a knowledge translation intervention for education in medical research methodology.||0||0|
|Don't bite the newbies: how reverts affect the quantity and quality of Wikipedia work||Aaron Halfaker
|WikiSym||English||2011||Reverts are important to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia. They fix mistakes, repair vandalism, and help enforce policy. However, reverts can also be damaging, especially to the aspiring editor whose work they destroy. In this research we analyze 400,000 Wikipedia revisions to understand the effect that reverts had on editors. We seek to understand the extent to which they demotivate users, reducing the workforce of contributors, versus the extent to which they help users improve as encyclopedia editors. Overall we find that reverts are powerfully demotivating, but that their net influence is that more quality work is done in Wikipedia as a result of reverts than is lost by chasing editors away. However, we identify key conditions – most specifically new editors being reverted by much more experienced editors – under which reverts are particularly damaging. We propose that reducing the damage from reverts might be one effective path for Wikipedia to solve the newcomer retention problem.||0||2|
|A jury of your peers: Quality, experience and ownership in Wikipedia||Aaron Halfaker
|WikiSym||English||2009||Wikipedia is a highly successful example of what mass collaboration in an informal peer review system can accomplish. In this paper, we examine the role that the quality of the contributions, the experience of the contributors and the ownership of the content play in the decisions over which contributions become part of Wikipedia and which ones are rejected by the community. We introduce and justify a versatile metric for automatically measuring the quality of a contribution. We find little evidence that experience helps contributors avoid rejection. In fact, as they gain experience, contributors are even more likely to have their work rejected. We also find strong evidence of ownership behaviors in practice despite the fact that ownership of content is discouraged within Wikipedia. Copyright||0||6|
|Exploring the effects of experience on wiki anxiety and wiki usability: An online study||Cowan B.R.
|People and Computers XXIII Celebrating People and Technology - Proceedings of HCI 2009||English||2009||Information Technology is now pervasive in Higher Education institutions and developments in IT are changing the technological landscape at Universities. A recent phenomenon shaping such changes is the use of Web 2.0 tools in a pedagogical context. These tools are often included into a University's IT mix without full appreciation of the possible negative emotions student users may have towards these tools. It is generally assumed that experience with the IT system will be enough to reduce any anxious feelings which may manifest in users about such systems. This study firstly aims to observe the relationship that such emotion may have on usability evaluation of a wiki system. It also aims to investigate the effect of experience on students' negative affective reactions towards a wiki tool. Second year undergraduate psychology students (N=92) who were using a wiki to collaborate on course projects completed questionnaires measuring usability evaluation and anxiety towards the wiki both 2 weeks (Time 1) and 12 weeks (Time 2) into their usage of the system. The research found that wiki anxiety was negatively correlated to participants' usability evaluations of the wiki at both time 1 and time 2. Further experience with the system had little effect on users' negative emotions towards the wiki. Users also showed little change in their usability rating of the system with more exposure to the wiki. However any change in wiki anxiety over the study was negatively correlated with a change in usability evaluation. Possible interpretations of the relationship between wiki anxiety, wiki usability and possible effects of the type and quality of user experience on wiki anxiety are discussed.||0||0|
|Exploring the effects of experience on wiki anxiety and wiki usability: an online study||Benjamin R. Cowan
Mervyn A. Jack