(Alternative names for this keyword)
|Related keyword(s)||wikipedia policy, principle|
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of keywords|
policy is included as keyword or extra keyword in 0 datasets, 0 tools and 10 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|
|Getting to the source: Where does wikipedia get its information from?||Heather Ford
|Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, WikiSym + OpenSym 2013||English||2013||We ask what kinds of sources Wikipedians value most and compare Wikipedia's stated policy on sources to what we observe in practice. We find that primary data sources developed by alternative publishers are both popular and persistent, despite policies that present such sources as inferior to scholarly secondary sources. We also find that Wikipedians make almost equal use of information produced by associations such as nonprofits as from scholarly publishers, with a significant portion coming from government information sources. Our findings suggest the rise of new influential sources of information on the Web but also reinforce the traditional geographic patterns of scholarly publication. This has a significant effect on the goal of Wikipedians to represent "the sum of all human knowledge." Categories and Subject Descriptors H.3.4 [Information Systems]: Systems and SoftwareInformation Networks; H.5.3 [Information Systems]: Group and Organization Interfacescomputer-supported collaborative work General Terms Human Factors, Measurement. Copyright 2010 ACM.||0||0|
|Keeping eyes on the prize: Officially sanctioned rule breaking in mass collaboration systems||Elisabeth Joyce
|English||2013||Mass collaboration systems are often characterized as unstructured organizations lacking rule and order. However, examination of Wikipedia reveals that it contains a complex policy and rule structure that supports the organization. Bureaucratic organizations adopt workarounds to adjust rules more accurately to the context of use. Rather than resorting to these potentially dangerous exceptions, Wikipedia has created officially sanctioned rule breaking. The use and impact of the official rule breaking policy within Wikipedia is examined to test its impact on the outcomes of requests to delete articles in from the encyclopedia. The results demonstrate that officially sanctioned rule breaking and the Ignore all rules (IAR) policy are meaningful influences on deliberation outcomes, and rather than wreaking havoc, the IAR policy in Wikipedia has been adopted as a positive, functional governance mechanism. Copyright 2013 ACM.||0||0|
|Handling flammable materials: Wikipedia biographies of living persons as contentious objects||Elisabeth Joyce
|Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View": Settling Conflict through Ambiguity||Sorin Adam Matei
|The Information Society||English||2011||0||0|
|Wikipedia's "neutral point of view": Settling conflict through ambiguity||Matei S.A.
|Information Society||English||2011||This article discusses how one of the most importantWikipedia policies, the "neutral point of view" (NPOV), is appropriated and interpreted by the participants in the Wikipedia project. By analyzing a set of constitutive documents for the Wikipedian universe, including discussion about NPOV, the authors conclude that ambiguity is at the heart of the policy process on Wikipedia. The overarching conclusion is that ambiguity onWikipedia is not extraneous, but a central ingredient of this wiki project's policymaking. Ambiguity naturally develops from the pluralist and nonhierarchic values of the culture that brought Wikipedia to life, and this conclusion requires that we reconsider the nature of "neutrality" practiced on Wikipedia. Copyright||0||0|
|A common awareness and knowledge platform for studying and enabling independent living - CAPSIL||Bennis C.
|2010 4th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, Pervasive Health 2010||English||2010||The population of the world is growing older, and the balance of old to young is shifting so that by 2050 over 30% of the population is expected to be over 60 years old[l], with particularly high ratios of old to young in the EU, USA and Japan. CAPSIL is an FP7 Coordinating Support Action that incorporates a strategic international coalition of University and Industrial partners that already have extensive teams developing hardware/software/knowledge solutions to independent living based on user requirements. CAPSIL has two fundamental goals: 1. To carry out an analysis of the state of the art with regards to technology, healthcare and public policy in the EU, US and Japan for enabling independent living for older adults. Based on this analysis, develop a detailed roadmap for EU research to achieve effective and sustainable solutions for independent living 2. To support aging research by proposing procedures to incorporate all of these diverse solutions into WiKi entries (CAPSIL WiKi). It is our hope that these CAPSIL WiKi's will enable researchers and the ICT industry to get the information they need to quickly and easily test solutions for prolonging independent living within the many and various heterogeneous communities. In this paper we will summarise the principal findings of the CAPSIL Roadmap and present an overview of the main research gaps and recommendations for policy and research development. Finally, we will introduce the CAPSIL WiKi infrastructure.||0||0|
|Don't look now, but we've created a bureaucracy: the nature and roles of policies and rules in Wikipedia||Brian Butler
|Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems||English||2008||Wikis are sites that support the development of emergent, collective infrastructures that are highly flexible and open, suggesting that the systems that use them will be egalitarian, free, and unstructured. Yet it is apparent that the flexible infrastructure of wikis allows the development and deployment of a wide range of structures. However, we find that the policies in Wikipedia and the systems and mechanisms that operate around them are multi-faceted. In this descriptive study, we draw on prior work on rules and policies in organizations to propose and apply a conceptual framework for understanding the natures and roles of policies in wikis. We conclude that wikis are capable of supporting a broader range of structures and activities than other collaborative platforms. Wikis allow for and, in fact, facilitate the creation of policies that serve a wide variety of functions.||11||5|
|Community, Consensus, Coercion, Control: CS*W or How Policy Mediates Mass Participation||Travis Kriplean
David W. McDonald
Scott A. Golder
|GROUP 2007 -- ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work.||2007||When large groups cooperate, issues of conflict and control surface because of differences in perspective. Managing such diverse views is a persistent problem in cooperative group work. The Wikipedian community has responded with an evolving body of policies that provide shared principles, processes, and strategies for collaboration. We employ a grounded approach to study a sample of active talk pages and examine how policies are employed as contributors work towards consensus. Although policies help build a stronger community, we find that ambiguities in policies give rise to power plays. This lens demonstrates that support for mass collaboration must take into account policy and power.||0||5|
|Community, consensus, coercion, control: CS*W or how policy mediates mass participation||Travis Kriplean
David W. McDonald
|GROUP'07 - Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work||English||2007||When large groups cooperate, issues of conflict and control surface because of differences in perspective. Managing such diverse views is a persistent problem in cooperative group work. The Wikipedian community has responded with an evolving body of policies that provide shared principles, processes, and strategies for collaboration. We employ a grounded approach to study a sample of active talk pages and examine how policies are employed as contributors work towards consensus. Although policies help build a stronger community, we find that ambiguities in policies give rise to power plays. This lens demonstrates that support for mass collaboration must take into account policy and power.||0||5|
|Ambiguity and conflict in the Wikipedian knowledge production system||Caius Dobrescu Sorin Adam Matei||International Communication Association Annual Conference, Dresden, Germany||2006||The paper analyzes the manner in which the most important implicit explanatory framework, emergence theory, and the central Wikipedia policy, the "Neutral point of view," are appropriated and reinterpreted by Wikipedia actors. Analyzing mailing list messages posted on Wikipedia-l and on Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View Policy" discussion page (a footnoting space used for coordinating the editorial process on Wikipedia) the paper comes to the conclusion that the debates are often conflictual and their solution is found in ambiguity. The overarching conclusion is that conflict and ambiguity on Wikipedia are not extraneous, but central ingredients of this wiki project. They naturally develop from the pluralist and non-hierarchic nature of the medium and of the culture that brought it to life.||0||1|