David Laniado is an author.
PublicationsOnly those publications related to wikis are shown here.
|Title||Keyword(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|A Platform for Visually Exploring the Development of Wikipedia Articles||ICWSM '15 - 9th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media||English||May 2015||When looking for information on Wikipedia, Internet users generally just read the latest version of an article. However, in its back-end there is much more: associated to each article are the edit history and talk pages, which together entail its full evolution. These spaces can typically reach thousands of contributions, and it is not trivial to make sense of them by manual inspection. This issue also affects Wikipedians, especially the less experienced ones, and constitutes a barrier for new editor engagement and retention. To address these limitations, Contropedia offers its users unprecedented access to the development of an article, using wiki links as focal points.||0||0|
|Societal Controversies in Wikipedia Articles||Wikipedia
|CHI '15 - Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems||English||April 2015||Collaborative content creation inevitably reaches situations where different points of view lead to conflict. We focus on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone may edit, where disputes about content in controversial articles often reflect larger societal debates. While Wikipedia has a public edit history and discussion section for every article, the substance of these sections is difficult to phantom for Wikipedia users interested in the development of an article and in locating which topics were most controversial. In this paper we present Contropedia, a tool that augments Wikipedia articles and gives insight into the development of controversial topics. Contropedia uses an efficient language agnostic measure based on the edit history that focuses on wiki links to easily identify which topics within a Wikipedia article have been most controversial and when.||0||0|
|Reader preferences and behavior on Wikipedia||Article quality
|HT 2014 - Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media||English||2014||Wikipedia is a collaboratively-edited online encyclopaedia that relies on thousands of editors to both contribute articles and maintain their quality. Over the last years, research has extensively investigated this group of users while another group of Wikipedia users, the readers, their preferences and their behavior have not been much studied. This paper makes this group and its %their activities visible and valuable to Wikipedia's editor community. We carried out a study on two datasets covering a 13-months period to obtain insights on users preferences and reading behavior in Wikipedia. We show that the most read articles do not necessarily correspond to those frequently edited, suggesting some degree of non-alignment between user reading preferences and author editing preferences. We also identified that popular and often edited articles are read according to four main patterns, and that how an article is read may change over time. We illustrate how this information can provide valuable insights to Wikipedia's editor community.||0||0|
|Bounding Boundaries: The Construction of Geoengineering on Wikipedia||Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 00 5||1 July 2013||Definitions and classifications of geoengineering are fluid and contested. Wikipedia offers an opportunity to study how people negotiate and construct these definitions. Geoengineering related Wikipedia articles were identified in an overall data set of climate change related articles, with data on both article inter-linkage and the commenting activity of article editors. This enabled analysis of how geoengineering is constructed on Wikipedia, in itself and in relation to wider climate change discourse. The main finding is that a distinction is made on Wikipedia between two groups of geoengineering methods. On the one hand, there is a group of land-based sequestration technologies, strongly related to adaptation and mitigation discourse, and on the other hand a set of geoengineering technologies, including solar radiation management, ocean iron fertilisation, weather modification and planetary engineering, that is relatively separate from the overall climate change discourse on Wikipedia.||0||0|
|Jointly They Edit: Examining the Impact of Community Identification on Political Interaction in Wikipedia||Online encyclopedias
|PLOS ONE||English||3 April 2013||Background
In their 2005 study, Adamic and Glance coined the memorable phrase ‘divided they blog’, referring to a trend of cyberbalkanization in the political blogosphere, with liberal and conservative blogs tending to link to other blogs with a similar political slant, and not to one another. As political discussion and activity increasingly moves online, the power of framing political discourses is shifting from mass media to social media.
Continued examination of political interactions online is critical, and we extend this line of research by examining the activities of political users within the Wikipedia community. First, we examined how users in Wikipedia choose to display their political affiliation. Next, we analyzed the patterns of cross-party interaction and community participation among those users proclaiming a political affiliation. In contrast to previous analyses of other social media, we did not find strong trends indicating a preference to interact with members of the same political party within the Wikipedia community.
Conclusions/SignificanceOur results indicate that users who proclaim their political affiliation within the community tend to proclaim their identity as a ‘Wikipedian’ even more loudly. It seems that the shared identity of ‘being Wikipedian’ may be strong enough to triumph over other potentially divisive facets of personal identity, such as political affiliation.
|Biographical Social Networks on Wikipedia: A cross-cultural study of links that made history||Wikipedia
Social network analysis
Cross language studies
|WikiSym||English||2012||It is arguable whether history is made by great men and women or vice versa, but undoubtably social connections shape history. Analysing Wikipedia, a global collective memory place, we aim to understand how social links are recorded across cultures. Starting with the set of biographies in the English Wikipedia we focus on the networks of links between these biographical articles on the 15 largest language Wikipedias. We detect the most central characters in these networks and point out culture-related peculiarities. Furthermore, we reveal remarkable similarities between distinct groups of language Wikipedias and highlight the shared knowledge about connections between persons across cultures.||0||0|
|Biographical social networks on Wikipedia: A cross-cultural study of links that made history||Cross language studies
Social network analysis
|WikiSym 2012||English||2012||It is arguable whether history is made by great men and women or vice versa, but undoubtably social connections shape history. Analysing Wikipedia, a global collective memory place, we aim to understand how social links are recorded across cultures. Starting with the set of biographies in the English Wikipedia we focus on the networks of links between these biographical articles on the 15 largest language Wikipedias. We detect the most central characters in these networks and point out culture-related peculiarities. Furthermore, we reveal remarkable similarities between distinct groups of language Wikipedias and highlight the shared knowledge about connections between persons across cultures.||0||0|
|Emotions and dialogue in a peer-production community: The case of Wikipedia||Talk page
|WikiSym 2012||English||2012||This paper presents a large-scale analysis of emotions in conversations among Wikipedia editors. Our focus is on the emotions expressed by editors in talk pages, measured by using the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW). We find evidence that to a large extent women tend to participate in discussions with a more positive tone, and that administrators are more positive than non-administrators. Surprisingly, female non-administrators tend to behave like administrators in many aspects. We observe that replies are on average more positive than the comments they reply to, preventing many discussions from spiralling down into conflict. We also find evidence of emotional homophily: editors having similar emotional styles are more likely to interact with each other. Our findings offer novel insights into the emotional dimension of interactions in peer-production communities, and contribute to debates on issues such as the flattening of editor growth and the gender gap.||0||0|
|Emotions and dialogue in a peer-production community: the case of Wikipedia||Wikipedia
|WikiSym||English||2012||This paper presents a large-scale analysis of emotions in conversations among Wikipedia editors. Our focus is on the emotions expressed by editors in talk pages, measured by using the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW).
We find evidence that to a large extent women tend to participate in discussions with a more positive tone, and that administrators are more positive than non-administrators. Surprisingly, female non-administrators tend to behave like administrators in many aspects.
We observe that replies are on average more positive than the comments they reply to, preventing many discussions from spiralling down into conflict. We also find evidence of emotional homophily: editors having similar emotional styles are more likely to interact with each other.Our findings offer novel insights into the emotional dimension of interactions in peer-production communities, and contribute to debates on issues such as the flattening of editor growth and the gender gap.
|There is no deadline: Time evolution of Wikipedia discussions||H-index
|WikiSym 2012||English||2012||Wikipedia articles are by definition never finished: at any moment their content can be edited, or discussed in the associated talk pages. In this study we analyse the evolution of these discussions to unveil patterns of collective participation along the temporal dimension, and to shed light on the process of content creation on different topics. At a micro-scale, we investigate peaks in the discussion activity and we observe a non-trivial relationship with edit activity. At a larger scale, we introduce a measure to account for how fast discussions grow in complexity, and we find speeds that span three orders of magnitude for different articles. Our analysis should help the community in tasks such as early detection of controversies and assessment of discussion maturity.||0||0|
|Automatically assigning Wikipedia articles to macro-categories||Wikipedia
|Hypertext||English||2011||The online encyclopedia Wikipedia offers millions of articles which are organized in a hierarchical category structure, created and updated by users. In this paper we present a technique which leverages this rich and disordered graph to assign each article to one or more topics. We modify an existing approach, based on the shortest paths between categories, in order to account for the direction of the hierarchy.||0||0|
|Co-authorship 2.0: patterns of collaboration in Wikipedia||Wikipedia
Social network analysis
|Hypertext||English||2011||The study of collaboration patterns in wikis can help shed light on the process of content creation by online communities. To turn a wiki's revision history into a collaboration network, we propose an algorithm that identifies as authors of a page the users who provided the most of its relevant content, measured in terms of quantity and of acceptance by the community. The scalability of this approach allows us to study the English Wikipedia community as a co-authorship network. We find evidence of the presence of a nucleus of very active contributors, who seem to spread over the whole wiki, and to interact preferentially with inexperienced users. The fundamental role played by this elite is witnessed by the growing centrality of sociometric stars in the network. Isolating the community active around a category, it is possible to study its specific dynamics and most influential authors.||0||3|
|When the Wikipedians Talk: Network and Tree Structure of Wikipedia Discussion Pages||ICWSM||English||2011||Talk pages play a fundamental role in Wikipedia as the place for discussion and communication. In this work we use the comments on these pages to extract and study three networks, corresponding to different kinds of interactions. We find evidence of a specific assortativity profile which differentiates article discussions from personal conversations. An analysis of the tree structure of the article talk pages allows to capture patterns of interaction, and reveals structural differences among the discussions about articles from different semantic areas.||0||2|