(Alternative names for this keyword)
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of keywords|
Authority is included as keyword or extra keyword in 0 datasets, 0 tools and 4 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|
|Does formal authority still matter in the age of wisdom of crowds: Perceived credibility, peer and professor endorsement in relation to college students' wikipedia use for academic purposes||Sook Lim||Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting||English||2013||This study explores whether or not formal authority still matters for college students using Wikipedia by examining the variables of individual perceived credibility, peer endorsement and professor endorsement in relation to students' academic use of Wikipedia. A web survey was used to collected data in fall 2011. A total of 142 students participated in the study, of which a total of 123 surveys were useable for this study. The findings show that the more professors approved of Wikipedia, the more students used it for academic purposes. In addition, the more students perceived Wikipedia as credible, the more they used it for academic purposes. The results indicate that formal authority still influences students' use of usergenerated content (UGC) in their formal domain, academic work. The results can be applicable to other UGC, which calls attention to educators' active intervention to appropriate academic use of UGC. Professors' guidelines for UGC would benefit students.||0||0|
|Citation needed: The dynamics of referencing in Wikipedia||Chih-Chun Chen
|WikiSym||English||August 2012||The extent to which a Wikipedia article refers to external sources to substantiate its content can be seen as a measure of its externally invoked authority. We introduce a protocol for characterising the referencing process in the context of general article editing. With a sample of relatively mature articles, we show that referencing does not occur regularly through an article’s lifetime but is associated with periods of more substantial editing, when the article has reached a certain level of maturity (in terms of the number of times it has been revised and its length). References also tend to be contributed by editors who have contributed more frequently and more substantially to an article, suggesting that a subset of more qualified or committed editors may exist for each article.||13||1|
|Teaching with Wikis: Toward a Networked Pedagogy||Lundin R.W.||Computers and Composition||English||2008||Computers and writing scholarship is increasingly turning towards the network as a potential pedagogical model, one in which writing is intimately connected to its social contexts. The use of wikis in first-year composition classes can support this networked pedagogy. More specifically, due to unique features such as editability and detailed page histories, wikis can challenge a number of traditional pedagogical assumptions about the teaching of writing. This article shows how wikis can challenge assumptions in four categories of interest to composition studies: new media composition, collaborative writing, critical interaction, and online authority. The analysis demonstrates that wikis, while not automatically revolutionary to composition pedagogy, hold significant potential to help facilitate pedagogical changes. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.||0||2|
|Measuring article quality in wikipedia: Models and evaluation||Hu M.
|International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Proceedings||English||2007||Wikipedia has grown to be the world largest and busiest free encyclopedia, in which articles are collaboratively written and maintained by volunteers online. Despite its success as a means of knowledge sharing and collaboration, the public has never stopped criticizing the quality of Wikipedia articles edited by non-experts and inexperienced contributors. In this paper, we investigate the problem of assessing the quality of articles in collaborative authoring of Wikipedia. We propose three article quality measurement models that make use of the interaction data between articles and their contributors derived from the article edit history. Our basic model is designed based on the mutual dependency between article quality and their author authority. The PeerReview model introduces the review behavior into measuring article quality. Finally, our ProbReview models extend PeerReview with partial reviewership of contributors as they edit various portions of the articles. We conduct experiments on a set of well-labeled Wikipedia articles to evaluate the effectiveness of our quality measurement models in resembling human judgement. Copyright 2007 ACM.||0||7|