Knowledge curation work in Wikidata WikiProject discussions | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how editors participate in Wikidata and how they organize their work.

Design/methodology/approach

This qualitative study used content analysis of discussions involving data curation and negotiation in Wikidata. Activity theory was used as a conceptual framework for data collection and analysis.

Findings

The analysis identified six activities: conceptualizing the curation process, appraising objects, ingesting objects from external sources, creating collaborative infrastructure, re-organizing collaborative infrastructure and welcoming newcomers. Many of the norms and rules that were identified help regulate the activities in Wikidata.

Research limitations/implications

This study mapped Wikidata activities to curation and ontology frameworks. Results from this study provided implications for academic studies on online peer-curation work.

Practical implications

An understanding of the activities in Wikidata will help inform communities wishing to contribute data to or reuse data from Wikidata, as well as inform the design of other similar online peer-curation communities, scientific research institutional repositories, digital archives and libraries.

Originality/value

Wikidata is one of the largest knowledge curation projects on the web. The data from this project are used by other Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, as well as major search engines. This study explores an aspect of Wikidata WikiProject editors to the author’s knowledge has yet to be researched.

The era of open citations and an update of tools- Citation Chaser, Wikicite addon for Zotero with citation graph support and more | Musings about librarianship

“In this blog post, I will report on some major progress I believe have been made in the push for open citations

Firstly, the recent announcement by Elsevier followed by ACS that they will finally support open citations is  pretty earthshaking news as they are among some of the biggest hold outs among publishers

Secondly, I continue to report on the emerging ecosystem of tools that are building upon open citations (from both publsher/Crossref derived sources and via other crawled sources).

Lastly, even if all major publishers pledge to support open citations, we will always have a lot of items that will not be available in Crossref with references either because the items are old, the publishers lack the resources to extract and deposit the references or the items are not given DOIs. …”

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) – Tagging help by OABN – Open Access Books Network Blog

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) – Tagging help by OABN

Background

The Open Access Tracking Project (OATP), is a crowd-sourced social tagging project that runs on open-source software. It harnesses the power of the community to capture news and comment on open access (OA) in every academic field and region of the world. We want to help expand its coverage of OA books — and you can help!

How

The OATP has two missions:

To create real-time alerts for OA-related developments, and
To organize knowledge of the field, by tag or subtopic, for easy searching and sharing.

The OATP publishes a large primary feed and hundreds of smaller secondary feeds – one of which (‘’oa.books’’) is a valuable resource for the OA book community. (It’s published alongside our blog posts, and provides valuable updates about developments and discussions related to OA books.)

There are two ways you can contribute to this feed.

 

1) Become a tagger yourself

If you are interested in tagging for the OATP, please have a look at this post, which explains the basics. Feel free to contact one of the OABN coordinators (info@oabooksnetwork.org) with any basic setup questions — all the coordinators have signed up, so they should be able to help you with any initial difficulties.

2) Ask the OABN

The OATP is a crowd-sourced project, depending on the ‘many eyeballs’ principle. The more contributors there are, from as many different backgrounds as possible, the better its coverage will be. However, lots of things might prevent you from becoming a tagger: for example, time constraints, a lack of technical expertise, or other restrictions.

The OABN coordinators would therefore be happy to tag online content related to open access books that is suggested by community members (to get a sense of the sorts of things that are currently tagged, see the OATP feed ‘’oa.books’’, which is published alongside our blog posts).

 

Scholars reflect on Wikipedia’s 20 years of crowdsourced knowledge | Books, Et Al.

“In 2005—not long after the founding of Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger in early 2001—academic experts commissioned to compare 42 articles published in Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia relating to science found an average of three errors in the Britannica entries and four in Wikipedia, suggesting a comparable level of accuracy (1). Yet in 2007, Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association, argued scornfully that “A professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a dietician who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything” (2). Gorman’s article reflected the widespread skepticism at the time about the reliability of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Today, Wikipedia is the world’s leading encyclopedia. Every month, 1.5 billion unique devices worldwide access it 15 billion times, with more than 6000 page views per second. Meanwhile, Encyclopaedia Britannica—last printed in 2010—is now “all but dead” online, according to scholar Heather Ford in her essay in Wikipedia @ 20.

The book’s 22 essays are wide-ranging, often intellectually engaging, and, in parts, stylishly written. Its 34 contributors include, fittingly, academics and nonacademics based in many countries, although predominantly in the United States. Its U.S.-based editors, Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner, are (respectively) a professor of communication studies and a qualitative research analyst for online communities who also acts as the community health consultant for the Wikimedia community….”

Scholars reflect on Wikipedia’s 20 years of crowdsourced knowledge | Books, Et Al.

“In 2005—not long after the founding of Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger in early 2001—academic experts commissioned to compare 42 articles published in Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia relating to science found an average of three errors in the Britannica entries and four in Wikipedia, suggesting a comparable level of accuracy (1). Yet in 2007, Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association, argued scornfully that “A professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a dietician who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything” (2). Gorman’s article reflected the widespread skepticism at the time about the reliability of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Today, Wikipedia is the world’s leading encyclopedia. Every month, 1.5 billion unique devices worldwide access it 15 billion times, with more than 6000 page views per second. Meanwhile, Encyclopaedia Britannica—last printed in 2010—is now “all but dead” online, according to scholar Heather Ford in her essay in Wikipedia @ 20.

The book’s 22 essays are wide-ranging, often intellectually engaging, and, in parts, stylishly written. Its 34 contributors include, fittingly, academics and nonacademics based in many countries, although predominantly in the United States. Its U.S.-based editors, Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner, are (respectively) a professor of communication studies and a qualitative research analyst for online communities who also acts as the community health consultant for the Wikimedia community….”

Creating More Visibility for Canadian Journals’ Self-Archiving Policies: An Open Access Week 2020 Crowdsourcing Project – Canadian Association of Research Libraries

“Researchers frequently need to know where and when they can share a copy of their submitted, accepted and/or published journal articles in order to: meet the requirements of a funder policy, share their research more widely through their institutional repository or a subject repository, or, decide where to publish. Most frequently, they look up the journal in question using the Sherpa RoMEO tool. However, many Canadian journals are not yet reflected in this leading international database, and for those that are, the information contained there can be old or incomplete.

CARL is therefore asking Canadian librarians, researchers, and journals to help us collect key information about these missing and incomplete journal entries to make it easier for researchers in Canada and beyond to find Canadian scholarly publication venues using this tool….”

What is the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)? – Open Access Books Network Blog

A post from the Open Access Books Network about the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) and how it can be used by anyone interested in Open Access books. Includes details of a Q&A with Peter Suber and Milica Ševkuši? on Tuesday 20th October at 10am EDT / 3pm BST.