| Collective intelligence|
(Alternative names for this keyword)
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of keywords|
Collective intelligence is included as keyword or extra keyword in 0 datasets, 0 tools and 7 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|
|Mass Collaboration or Mass Amateurism? A comparative study on the quality of scientific information produced using Wiki tools and concepts||Fernando Rodrigues||Universidade Évora||Portuguese||December 2012||With this PhD dissertation, we intend to contribute to a better understanding of the Wiki phenomenon as a knowledge management system which aggregates private knowledge. We also wish to check to what extent information generated through anonymous and freely bestowed mass collaboration is reliable as opposed to the traditional approach.
In order to achieve that goal, we develop a comparative study between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica with regard to accuracy, depth and detail of information in both, in order to confront the quality of the knowledge repository produced by them. That will allow us to reach a conclusion about the efficacy of the business models behind them.
We will use a representative random sample which is composed by the articles that are comprised in both encyclopedias. Each pair of articles was previously reformatted and then graded by an expert in its subject area. At the same time, we collected a small convenience sample which only integrates Management articles. Each pair of articles was graded by several experts in order to determine the uncertainty associated with having diverse gradings of the same article and apply it to the evaluations carried out by just one expert. The conclusion was that the average quality of the Wikipedia articles which were analysed was superior to its peers’ and that this difference was statistically significant.
An inquiry was conducted within the academia which certified that traditional information sources were used by a minority as the first approach to seeking information. This inquiry also made clear that reliance on these sources was considerably larger than reliance on information obtained through Wikipedia. This quality perception, as well as the diametrically opposed results of its evaluation through a blind test, reinforces the evaluating panel’s exemption.
However much the chosen sample is representative of the universe to be studied, results have depended on the evaluators’ personal opinion and chosen criteria. This means that the reproducibility of this study’s conclusions using a different grading panel cannot be guaranteed. Nevertheless, this is not enough of a reason to reject the study results obtained through more than five hundred evaluations.This thesis is thus an attempt to help clarifying this topic and contributing to a better perception of the quality of a tool which is daily used by millions of people, of the mass collaboration which feeds it and of the collaborative software that supports it.
|A Research for the Centrality of Article Edit Collective in Wikipedia||Dongjie Zhao
|A Wiki-based collective intelligence approach to formulate a body of knowledge (BOK) for a new discipline||Yoshifumi Masunaga
|Beyond Wikipedia: Coordination and Conflict in Online Production Groups||Aniket Kittur
Robert E. Kraut
|Computer-Supported Cooperative Work||English||2010||Online production groups have the potential to transform the way that knowledge is produced and disseminated. One of the most widely used forms of online production is the wiki, which has been used in domains ranging from science to education to enterprise. We examined the development of and interactions between coordination and conflict in a sample of 6811 wiki production groups. We investigated the influence of four coordination mechanisms: intra-article communication, inter-user communication, concentration of workgroup structure, and policy and procedures. We also examined the growth of conflict, finding the density of users in an information space to be a significant predictor. Finally, we analyzed the effectiveness of the four coordination mechanisms on managing conflict, finding differences in how each scaled to large numbers of contributors. Our results suggest that coordination mechanisms effective for managing conflict are not always the same as those effective for managing task quality, and that designers must take into account the social benefits of coordination mechanisms in addition to their production benefits.||0||2|
|Collective wisdom: information growth in wikis and blogs||Sanmay Das
|On Supporting HCOME-3O Ontology Argumentation Using Semantic Wiki Technology||Konstantinos Kotis||OTM||English||2008||0||0|
|How and why Wikipedia works: an interview with Angela Beesley, Elisabeth Bauer, and Kizu Naoko||Dirk Riehle||WikiSym||English||2006||This article presents an interview with Angela Beesley, Elisabeth Bauer, and Kizu Naoko. All three are leading Wikipedia practitioners in the English, German, and Japanese Wikipedias and related projects. The interview focuses on how Wikipedia works and why these three practitioners believe it will keep working. The interview was conducted via email in preparation of WikiSym 2006, the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis, with the goal of furthering Wikipedia research. Interviewer was Dirk Riehle, the chair of WikiSym 2006. An online version of the article provides simplified access to URLs.||0||1|