Information quality work organization in wikipedia

377 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Co-Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective (2010, neutral): “[98].”
Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls (2010, neutral): “Stvilia et al. [11, 12] used Wikipedia to demonstrate the process of evaluating the quality of information.”
Wiktionary: a new rival for expert-built lexicons? Exploring the possibilities of collaborative lexicography (2012, background): “Similar works exist, however, for Wikipedia talk pages (Stegbauer, 2009; Stvilia et al., 2008) that might serve as a good starting point.”
Cooperation and quality in wikipedia (2007, background): “Indeed, the development of an article is a highly complex process [ 29 ] and both directions of causality between editing and quality are likely to play a role.”
Rules of Crowdsourcing: Models, Issues, and Systems of Control (2013, methodology): “The major reason is that the wiki platform itself is now distributed as a piece of software that embeds “a series of workﬂow process” (Stvilia et al., 2008, p. 984) to improve and maintain the quality of user-generated contents.”
Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is Practical (2023, background): “Indeed, it is easy to temporarily edit Wikipedia to vandalize its contents [63, 69].”