Identifying controversial articles in Wikipedia: A comparative study
|Identifying controversial articles in Wikipedia: A comparative study|
|Author(s)||Hoda Sepehri Rad, Denilson Barbosa|
|Keyword(s)||Wikipedia, Controversy, Disagreement, Comparison, Monotonicity|
|Article||BASE, CiteSeerX, Google Scholar|
|Web||Ask, Bing, Google (PDF), Yahoo!|
|Download and mirrors|
|Local copy||Not available|
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of conference papers|
Wikipedia articles are the result of the collaborative editing of a diverse group of anonymous volunteer editors, who are passionate and knowledgeable about specific topics. One can argue that this plurality of perspectives leads to broader coverage of the topic, thus benefitting the reader. On the other hand, differences among editors on polarizing topics can lead to controversial or questionable content, where facts and arguments are presented and discussed to support a particular point of view. Controversial articles are manually tagged by Wikipedia editors, and span many interesting and popular topics, such as religion, history, and politics, to name a few. Recent works have been proposed on automatically identifying controversy within unmarked articles. However, to date, no systematic comparison of these efforts has been made. This is in part because the various methods are evaluated using different criteria and on different sets of articles by different authors, making it hard for anyone to verify the efficacy and compare all alternatives. We provide a first attempt at bridging this gap. We compare five different methods for modelling and identifying controversy, and discuss some of the unique difficulties and opportunities inherent to the way Wikipedia is produced.
- This section requires expansion. Please, help!
Probably, this publication is cited by others, but there are no articles available for them in WikiPapers.