865:(many of whom have recently pushed for Knowledge to let PR professionals edit articles about their clients to a greater extent) and produced 1,284 usable responses after being disseminated via various outlets. The results indicate that "of the 35% who had engaged with Knowledge, most did so by making edits directly on the Knowledge articles of their companies or clients". The response time to issues reported on talk pages was found to be one of the important barriers in the interaction between Knowledge community members and PR professionals. The author observes that "when the wait becomes too long, the content is defamatory, or a dispute with a Wikipedian needs to be elevated, there are resources to help. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the respondents in this study had used them and many had never heard of these resources". As another argument against the "bright line" rule advocated by Knowledge's Jimmy Wales (which says that PR professionals should not edit Knowledge articles they are involved in), a separate result of the paper has been offered, which has met with heavy criticism by Wikimedians regarding statistical biases and other issues (see e.g. last week's Signpost coverage: "
787:". As the main difference between the activity on those two sites (which the authors describe as "commercial news sites") and on the Wikipedias, it was found that Knowledge edits "distribute fairly equally over all days in all cases. The drop of activity on weekends that occurred with the commercial news services is not visible in the Wikipedias, quite the opposite, with Sundays typically seeing the highest average level of activity. Only the Arabic version has a slightly lower activity rate in Sundays, however, we should remember the fact that in Arabic countries the weekend falls on Friday-Saturday or in some countries on Thursday-Friday". The diurnal patterns are found to be "more spread out" on Knowledge, where "the activity levels follow natural diurnal rhythms. Interestingly, a great number of changes are made during working hours, which leads us to 2 different, but not mutually exclusive, conjectures about the people who edit Knowledge. Either, the editors are people with “free” time during the day, e.g., students, or people actually edit Knowledge during the working hours at work. Our methodology is not able to answer this question".
650:. GroupLens PhD candidate Aaron Halfaker (who also collaborates with the Wikimedia Foundation as a contractor research analyst) shared some preliminary results on the quality of new user contributions, part of a larger study currently submitted for publication. The results, based on an analysis of revert rates in the English Knowledge combined with blind assessment of a new editor contribution history, indicate that new editors have produced the same level of quality in their first contributions since 2006. Despite the fact that "the majority of new editors are not out to obviously harm the encyclopedia (~80 percent), and many of them are leaving valuable contributions to the project in their first editing session (~40 percent)", today's user experience for a first-time editor is much more hostile than it used to be, as "the rate of rejection of all good-faith new editors’ first contributions has been rising steadily, and, accordingly, retention rates have fallen. These results challenge the hypothesis that today’s newbies produce much lower quality contributions than in earlier years.
375:
paragraphs about "sense ordering" make some vague claims (e.g. "Although there is no specific guideline for the sense ordering in
Wiktionary, we observed that the first entry is often the most frequently used one") which could be interesting and useful from a community perspective, but offers little actionable evidence and should be investigated further. The paper's conclusions identify some of the features that enable Wiktionary to rival expert-built lexicons: "We believe that its unique structure and collaboratively constructed contents are particularly useful for a wide range of dictionary users", listing eight such groups – among them "Laypeople who want to quickly look up the definition of an unknown term or search for a forum to ask a question on a certain usage or meaning."
680:
744:
file description pages): "Originally, UHDS intended to contribute exclusively to the
External Links section of existing Knowledge articles. UHDS staff found it was much more effective to match digital items with Knowledge articles and to share those items in Wikimedia Commons (WMC) rather than (or in addition to) the External Links section of the articles." While few statistics are given, the authors emphasize the effectiveness of their actions, observed already for the very first attempts: "Within hours of posting external links to existing Knowledge articles, the digital library received hits to those collections at a surprisingly high rate." As an example of an article enriched with such images, the entry
511:), the highest ratio of tagged articles were found in the "Computers" (48.51%), "Belief" (46.33%) and "Business" (39.99%) topics; the lowest were in "Geography" (19.83%), "Agriculture" (22.57%) and "Nature" (23.93%). Of the 388 tags on the more complete list, "307 refer to an article as a whole and 81 to a particular text fragment". As another original contribution of the paper, the authors offer an organization of the existing cleanup tags into "12 general flaw types" – the most frequent being "Verifiability" (19.46% of articles have been tagged with one of the corresponding templates), "Wiki tech" (e.g. the "orphan", "wikify" or "uncategorized" templates; 5.47% of articles) and "General cleanup" (2.01%).
891:(AMA) offer a more positive view on Knowledge from PR professionals: "Is Knowledge A Reliable Tool for Marketing Educators and Students? A Surprising Heck Yes!". The paper chose a more systematic way to examine the quality of Knowledge articles than the PRSA study and focused on AMA's area of expertise, starting out from a "random sample of marketing glossary terms were collected from 3 marketing management textbooks and 4 marketing principles textbooks", and rating corresponding Knowledge entries from 1 to 3 according to a standard procedure for content analysis: "Each textbook definition was compared to the corresponding Knowledge definition and rated using a 3-point
379:
no more, no less", which sounds a bit contradictory. The authors also note that "Lepore (2006: 87) raised a criticism about the large-scale import of lexicon entries from copyright-expired dictionaries such as
Webster's New International Dictionary". It would be nice if the authors would write at least a short explanation of the problem that Lepore described. But the actual article mentions Wiktionary only very briefly. For the most part, the article is a good academic-grade presentation of Wiktionary: it is very general and does not dive too much into details; it makes a few vague statements, but they present a good starting point for further research.
625:: In an article titled "Extracting Difference Information from Multilingual Knowledge", four Japanese researchers describe a "method for extracting information which exists in one language version , but which does not exist in another language version. Our method specifically examines the link graph of Knowledge and structure of an article of Knowledge. Then we extract comparison target articles of Knowledge using our proposed degree of relevance." As motivating example, they note that the English Knowledge's coverage of the game cricket is much fuller than the Japanese Knowledge's, but spread over separate articles beyond just the main one at
706:. As might be expected, articles at any point in the peer review process tend to be rated more highly by reviewers, but this distinction is highly sensitive to the article length. Once length is accounted for (using a variety of methods), the differences between demoted or not promoted articles and unrated articles disappears. The research also offers a broad snapshot of the AFT dataset as well as some suggestions for future AFT design. Future revisions of the draft as well as the presentation will approach the dynamic relationship between peer reviewed status and reader feedback, exploiting entry and exit into various categories for
607:: A paper by two Japanese researchers proposes "a method of searching for minority information that is less-acknowledged and has less popularity in Knowledge" for a given keyword. "For example, if the user inputs ‘football’ as a majority information keyword, then the system seeks articles having a sentence of “....looks like football....” or similar content of articles about soccer in Knowledge. It extracts as candidates for minority sports those articles which have few edits and few editors. Then, it performs sports filtering and extracts minority articles from the candidates. In this case, the results are ‘
577:
including diversity of the admin user interests, the influence & importance across the network, and longevity & activity in terms of contribution." The authors observe that the recognition of an admin's work by other users in the form of barnstars seems to agree with the overall rank they calculate from these quantities: "By analyzing the profiles of the top ranked fifty admin users as a test case, it has been observed that the number of barn stars received by them also follows the similar trend as we overall ranked the admin users."To extract topics from an admin's history and define diversity,
641:
919:: A paper by three Finnish authors describes course assignments to upper secondary school students (age 16–18) involving "writing articles for Knowledge (a public wiki) and for the school’s own wiki", in subject areas including biology, geography and Finnish history. In particular the paper reports that "a carefully planned library can help to activate students to use printed materials in their source-based writing assignments. findings corroborate the generally held view that students tend to copy-paste and plagiarise, especially when exploiting Web sources."
964:
according to entropy reduction. The increasing power-law coefficient causes the shift of the contributions from elites to crowd. The saturation of free energy reduction ratio may cause the saturation of the active editors." The next section finds that "entropy efficiency is correlated with the quality of the social collaboration", and one figure is interpreted as implying "that the nature of
Knowledge is a true media of the masses, where pages produced by crowd wisdom will have higher quality and thus more readership compared to that produced by a few elites."
1826:
1798:
1773:
1748:
1697:
1672:
1647:
1616:
1591:
1566:
1491:
1466:
1438:
1413:
1309:
1284:
1253:
1222:
1197:
1108:
1079:
1051:
1723:
1541:
1516:
1385:
1359:
1334:
1133:
200:
90:
446:
423:. Thus, the study fails to consider whether Knowledge would want to publish academic articles without their undergoing changes to bring them closer to encyclopedic style – a topic that already has become an issue numerous times on the site, in particular regarding difficulties encountered by some educational projects. In the end, the paper, while a well-intentioned piece, seems to illustrate that university researchers can have a quite different understanding of what Knowledge is than those more closely connected with the project.
598:
1012:
777:
for such institutional usage of
Knowledge and Commons, the paper describes the prohibition "to share an editor username with other editors, and organizational usernames are considered a violation of Knowledge guidelines forbidding the promotion of organizations. When the pilot project transitioned into a permanent departmental program, UHDS staff struggled to devise a way that others on staff could continue to monitor previous edits and uploads and create new ones", e.g. due to the lack of shared watchlists.
2160:. One might ask why they never received a barnstar. Was it because their work was generally not of a distinctive and/or quality nature? Does the undistinguished nature of their contributions make them predisposed to have a higher need for peer recognition? This is unclear, but mathematically it appears to be a biased selection. (Note that I'm not making claims about the quality of the selection pool: I'm just saying that these are unknown variables that are not accounted for by the control sample.) Regards,
388:
980:: Barcelona Media Foundation studied "the most influential characters" in the 15 largest language Wikipedias, by asking which biographies are the most linked to ("central") from other Knowledge biography articles. Political and artistic biographies are the most central, and the particular biographies depend on the language. They found, for instance, that Shakespeare's biography is among the most important for Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and Dutch, but not for English. And they estimated the
1860:
117:
593:. Analyzing the whole network, the authors find a "decreasing trend of the clustering coefficient can also be seen as a symptom of the growing centralization of the network." Overall, they observe that "the administrator network is a healthy small world community having a small average distances and a strong centralization of the network around some hubs/stars is observed. This shows a considerable nucleus of very active administrators who seems to be omnipresent."
107:
262:
2040:)"). From this it should have been obvious that it had been a deliberate decision to include this item; the publication as such is certainly recent enough to be in scope (J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012 vol. 94-B no. SUPP XIV 13); and for better or worse this 2012 abstract will be read by people; it makes sense to give them the context that you noted. Therefore I have reinserted the item (modifying the wording a bit regarding the abstract). Regards,
581:(LDA) is used. The authors describe a prototype software called "Administrator Exploration Prototype System", which displays these various quantitative measures for an admin and allows ranking them. In particular, it "will automatically find the expert authors based on the editing history of each admin user". An example screenshot shows a list of results for a "Search for "Expert Admin User" for the keywords "Music, Songs, Singers", topped by
33:
127:
87:
137:
97:
783:: Two Finnish researchers analyzed the distribution of timestamps in the recent changes RSS feed from four different language versions (Arabic, Finnish, Korean, and Swedish - Arabic having been chosen because its speakers are spread over "a very wide range of timezones", in contrast to the other three), and RSS new feeds from BBC World News "and the leading Finnish daily newspaper
110:
902:: An abstract published in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery finds "that the quality of osteosarcoma-related information found in English Knowledge is good but inferior to the patient information provided by the National Cancer Institute". The abstract refers to a study and results that appear to be identical to the one reported in a 2010 viewpoint article in the
130:
100:
1983:
said "peer review" as an excuse to use it as a "reliable source" for
Knowledge purposes. When I have more details nailed down I'll be making a blog post about this. But the tl;dr is that it was, from its inception, precisely the sort of brazen, cynical PR attempt to warp Knowledge policies that people worry about from corporate editors -
140:
984:(similarity) between the social networks in different language editions: most similarity can be explained by language-family and geographical or historical ties. One interesting finding is that Dutch "seems to serve as a bridge between different language and cultural groups". Some social connections are very common, and they produce a
869:"): 32% of the respondents said that "there are currently factual errors on their company or client’s Knowledge articles", corresponding to 41% of those respondents who said that such articles existed, or 60% of those respondents who said that such articles existed but did not reply "don't know" to that question. The press releases
818:, which is a reasonable approximation to what we would want to think of as ‘English in general’ is a third of the way between Simple and Main, demonstrating the accomplishments of Simple editors, who pushed Simple half as much below average complexity as the encyclopedia genre pushes Main above it." However, the number of distinct
507:), the authors analyzed – together with a third collaborator – a 2010 dump of the English Knowledge for a smaller set of tags, arriving at a much lower ratio: "8.52% have been tagged to contain at least one of the 70 flaws". Using a classification of Knowledge articles into 24 overlapping topic areas (derived from
970:: Another paper presented at the Collective Intelligence 2012 conference similarly found "that the number of contributors has a curvilinear relationship to information quality, more contributors improving quality but only up to a certain point" - based on an examination of 16,068 articles in the realm of the
720:, titled "The influence of 💕s on science" charts the number of papers in Scopus that are either about Knowledge or cite it. Considering that Knowledge was only founded in 2001 (i.e. that these numbers have necessarily started from zero right before the observed timespan), the author's astonishment at the
743:
and a former intern report how they had successfully used
Knowledge to drive traffic to the collection of the institution's digital services department (UHDS), proceeding from merely inserting links into articles to uploading images from the collection to Commons (which still contain such link on the
378:
On a critical note, the last paragraph says "we believe that collaborative lexicography will not replace traditional lexicographic theories, but will provide a different viewpoint that can improve and contribute to the lexicography of the future. Thus, Wiktionary is a rival to expert-built lexicons –
937:
of a particle, positing a "logarithmic energy model" for edits which assumes a "decreasing effort required for a given user to make additional edits in a relatively short period of time (e.g., one month) or to a particular page". (According to the authors this contrasts with two other theories which
519:
Kaltenbrunner and
Laniado look at the time evolution of Knowledge discussions, and how it correlates to editing activity, based on 9.4 million comments from the March 12, 2010 dump. Peaks in commenting and peaks in editing often co-occur (for sufficiently large peaks of 20 comments, 63% of the time)
273:
contains a description and critical assessment of
Knowledge's second oldest sister project (which will celebrate its 10th anniversary in December this year) – subtitled "Exploring the possibilities of collaborative lexicography", which it calls a "fundamentally new paradigm for compiling lexicons".
2176:
That is a fair point. Still, I'd be surprised if the result could not be somewhat meaningfully extrapolated to other editor groups (moreover as it may be a bit hard to assess the motivational aspect of barnstars on editors who are more often receiving barnstars anyway). What I am saying is that the
942:
distribution of edit counts: The "Knowledge editors are 'born'" notion, which assumes that different users need to expend different amounts of energy on the same kind of edits due to "an extreme heterogeneity of preference among the potential user population", and the "Knowledge editors are 'made'"
833:
researcher Mark Graham and his team, reports that almost half of all edits to
Knowledge from South America come from Brazil, which is unsurprising considering that the largest population of Internet users in South America lives in Brazil. More interestingly, Chile –- a country with only 5-6% of the
822:
used (a measure for vocabulary richness) is almost the same on the English and Simple Knowledge (the samples were chosen to be of the same size). Still "detailed analysis of longer units (n-grams rather than words alone) shows that the language of Simple is indeed less complex". In another finding,
668:
to study how the community of Knowledge may have formed its specific cultural traits and distinctive sociological features. Starting from the distribution of user account lifespan in five of the largest Knowledge communities (English, German, Italian, French, and Portuguese) this work shows how the
1982:
It appears the PRSA study (a) was bought into the PRSA Journal, i.e. they were paid to include it (b) went through a different "peer review" mechanism to the one usually used, so as to be able to be branded "peer-reviewed." And a CREWE member (Robert Lawton) has explicitly stated his intent to use
776:
are not cited in the paper, it notes that "contributing effectively to Knowledge and WMC entailed a steep learning curve in order to align contributions with the granular and well-enforced Knowledge guidelines for use", and among them notices policies against advertising. As one unresolved problem
528:
article as a case study, showing peaks in comments and editing due to news events as well as to internal Knowledge events (such as an editor poll or article protection). Current events are often edited and discussed in nearly real-time in contrast to articles about historical or scientific facts.
277:
The article describes in detail the technical and community features of Wiktionary. Though it is not immediately clear, the article's focus is on several language editions and not just English (as often happens in research about Knowledge and its sister projects). The article gives a comprehensive
523:
The authors note that a single, heavy editor can be responsible for edit peaks but not comment peaks; peaks in the discussion activity seem to indicate more widespread interest by multiple people. They find that "the fastest growing discussions are more likely to have long lasting edit peaks" and
278:
account of the coverage of the world's languages by the various Wiktionary language editions. There is a critical analysis of Wiktionary's content, first with what appears to be a thorough statistical comparison with other dictionaries and wordnets, including an examination of the overlaps in the
484:
The author is highly critical of Knowledge's reliability, arguing that a source that "anyone can edit" – and where much of the information is not verified – should not be used in works that may influence legal decisions. Thus Baker calls for stricter rules in legal publishing, in particular that
432:
has announced that it is starting to publish "Topic Pages" - peer-reviewed texts about specific topics, which are published both in the journal and as a new article on Knowledge. It is hoped that the Knowledge versions will be updated and improved by the Knowledge community. The first example is
963:
of an editing community and their edits during a particular timespan. They then calculate the latter two for each month in the English Knowledge's history from January 2002 to December 2009. They conclude that "Knowledge has become more efficient in terms of entropy efficiency, and more ordered
789:
Furthermore, the authors offer a rather far-reaching but (if proven) significant conjecture based on their date: "Cultural and geographical differences in the Wikipedias we studied seemed to have very little effect on the level of activity. This leads us to speculate that the 'trait' of editing
687:
The research finds that an important factor to determine whether a community will be able to sustain itself and thrive is the degree of openness of individual users towards differing points of view, which may be critical in the early stages of user participation, when a newcomer first enters in
502:
A paper titled "A Breakdown of Quality Flaws in Knowledge" examines cleanup tags on the English Knowledge (using a January 2011 dump), finding that 27.53% of articles are tagged with at least one of altogether 388 different cleanup templates. In a 2011 conference poster (a version of which was
406:
The biggest challenges for academic contributions to Knowledge, they found, revolve around the level of acceptance of Knowledge in academia, poor integration with academic databases, and technical and conceptual differences between an academic article and an encyclopedic one. However, the paper
374:
is comprehensive, although limited to the English Wiktionary. Other language editions may do it differently. The article notes that "it is a serious problem to distinguish well-crafted entries from those that need substantial revision by the community", which is good constructive criticism. The
2100:
I have considered trying to clean it up, but I'm not sure where to start. Probably a RFC or working group, as you wouldn't want to go to TFD/CfD without a very good idea of what to change. Those 388 tags would probably assign article to just as many cats, even ignoring the per month cats. The
724:
for both kinds of papers from 2002 to 2011 (which she calls "staggering" and "unbelievable", respectively) is somewhat surprising, but the article also gives the growth rates for the five years from 2007 to 2011 (ca. 19% per year for Knowledge as a subject, ca. 31% per year for Knowledge as a
576:
of administrators on the English Knowledge (where two of them are connected by an edge if they have edited the same article during the sampled time span from January 2010 to January 2011), and "define six features to reflect the characteristics of administrator’s work from different respects
365:
The article notes an important characteristic of open wiki projects: they allow "updating of the lexicons immediately, without being restricted to certain release cycles as is the case for expert-built lexicons" (p. 18). Though this characteristic is obvious to experienced Wikimedians, it is
895:
where 1=Correct Definition, 2=Correct but difficult to find the term or the definition was not easy to decipher, or 3=Incorrect definition when compared to the textbook term.". Of 459 items in the eventual sample only five were rated 3, and "the average score across all textbooks was a 1.18
493:
243, 293 (2009)). This argument does, however, raise the question of whether no citation at all is truly better than a citation to Knowledge; if such a recommendation were followed, it could lead to a proliferation of uncited claims in law review journals that would be assumed (without any
239:
higher than that of the control group. What really took the researchers by surprise was how long-lasting the effect was. They followed the two groups for 90 days, observing that the increase in contribution level for the group of barnstar recipients persisted, almost unabated, for the full
1930:
466:). For the period 2002–08, Baker identified 1540 law-review articles that contain at least one citation of Knowledge – most in law reviews dealing with general and "popular" subject matter, with a significant proportion originating from authors with academic credentials.
548:
They envision more sophisticated algorithms showing the relative growth in edits and discussions. Their ideas for future work are intriguing – for instance, the question of how to determine article maturity and the level of consensus, based on the network dynamics.
2125:
Well right there they are introducing a strong bias into the selection process by pre-screening high productivity editors who had not received any barnstar-style praise. It is clearly not a representative sample. Ergo I'm pretty dubious about the result. Regards,
235:, each consisting of 100 users. They awarded a barnstar to each user in the experimental group; the users in the control group were not given a barnstar. The researchers found their hypothesis confirmed: the productivity of the users in the experimental group was
823:
the authors "investigate the relation between conflict and language complexity by analysing the content of the talk pages associated to controversial and peacefully developing articles, concluding that controversy has the effect of reducing language complexity."
998:
highlighted the fact that in the paper's table of most connected biographies (listing the top 5 from 15 language versions), among the 75 entries "only three are women: Queen Elizabeth II, Marilyn Monroe and Margaret Thatcher", which it interprets as one of
688:
contact with the body of social norms that the community has devised. The thesis concludes that simulation techniques, when supplemented with empirical methods and quantitative calibration, may become an important tool for conducting sociological studies.
556:
536:
to assess the complexity of a discussion, and they chart the growth rate of the discussions. For instance, they find that the discussion pages of the three most recent US Presidents show a constant growth in complexity but that the rate of growth varies:
489:, and thus does not require referencing (a recommendation that follows a 2009 one – Brett Deforest Maxfield, "Ethics, politics and securities law: how unethical people are using politics to undermine the integrity of our courts and financial markets", 35
660:. Unlike traditional social groups -- a recently-defended doctoral dissertation in computer science argues -- the process of formation of these traits involves, and often determines, how contents are being produced. The dissertation, defended by former
814:' books, they observe that "Remarkably, the fog index of Simple English Knowledge is higher than that of Dickens, whose writing style is sophisticated but doesn’t rely on the use of longer latinate words which are hard to avoid in an encyclopedia. The
252:
confirmed he accidentally logged out when delivering the barnstars. He did not, however, declare his status as a researcher, and the group's paper does not disclose that the behavior was considered unusual enough to warrant such a discussion thread.
67:
850:
in Lyon, France saw a demo titled "SWiPE: Searching Knowledge by Example", showcasing a tool where the user can search for articles similar to a given one by modifying entries in that article's infobox, and also ask questions in natural
796:", but missing from the "Related work" section of the present paper) had similarly examined daily and weekly patterns on Knowledge, coming to other results - in particular, different language Wikipedias showed different weekly patterns.
769:
243:
One major factor the experiment did not take into account was whether it mattered who delivered barnstars and whether they were anonymous, registered, or known members of the Knowledge community. During the experiment, it was
1371:
Fujiwara, Y., Suzuki, Y., Konishi, Y., Nadamoto, A., Sheng, Q., Wang, G., Jensen, C., et al. (2012). Extracting Difference Information from Multilingual Knowledge. In: Q. Z. Sheng, G. Wang, C. S. Jensen, & G. Xu (Eds.)
497:
461:
and the appropriateness of this practice. The article seems to be well researched, and its author, law reference/research librarian Daniel J. Baker, demonstrates familiarity with the mechanics of Knowledge (such as the
1709:
Leithner, A., Maurer-Ertl, W., Glehr, M., Friesenbichler, J., Leithner, K., & Windhager, R. (2012). Knowledge and Osteosarcoma: An educational opportunity and professional responsibility for Emsos.
2029:
Thanks for pointing to the 2010 paper and Signpost article (which I wrote myself). However, both were already mentioned in the text that you removed ("... reported in a 2010 viewpoint article in the
245:
861:(PRSA) surveyed public relations and communications professionals about their perception of Knowledge contribution and conflict of interest. The online survey was pilot-tested with members of the
1346:
Hattori, Y., & Nadamoto, A. (2012). Search for Minority Information from Knowledge Based on Similarity of Majority Information. In: Q. Z. Sheng, G. Wang, C. S. Jensen, & G. Xu (Eds.)
1066:
Meyer, C. M., & Gurevych, I. (2012). Wiktionary: a new rival for expert-built lexicons? Exploring the possibilities of collaborative lexicography. In S. Granger & M. Paquot (Eds.),
840:: A student paper titled "Death and Change Tracking : Knowledge Edit Bursts" examines the editing activity in nine articles about celebrity actors on the English Knowledge after they died.
988:. The authors note that articles on people from non-Anglo-Saxon cultures may be missing if they are not known internationally, since the initial list of notable people is extracted from
629:. The goal is a system where a (Japanese) user can enter a keyword and will receive the "Japanese article with sections of English articles that do not appear in the Japanese article".
1321:
Yousaf, J., Li, J., Zhang, H., & Hou, L. (2012). Exploration and Visualization of Administrator Network in Knowledge. In: Q. Z. Sheng, G. Wang, C. S. Jensen, & G. Xu (Eds.),
2034:
2004:
907:
2142:
It is a valid result for highly productive editors. You are free to extrapolate this to less productive users, and I'd be interested in an argument why that should be dismissed.
73:
2123:"To test their hypothesis, they determined the top 1% most productive English Knowledge users among the currently active editors who had yet to receive their first barnstar."
1945:
866:
2049:
881:
after the criticism "to clarify the survey findings described in this press release and help prevent any misinterpretation of the data that this release may have caused".
793:
504:
2095:
772:"). Much of the paper describes basic technicalities of Knowledge: The uploading of image, the use of contributions lists, talk pages and watchlists. While Knowledge's
2114:
1992:
1914:
1904:
1813:
Aragón, P., Kaltenbrunner, A., Laniado, D., & Volkovich, Y. (2012). Biographical Social Networks on Knowledge - A cross-cultural study of links that made history.
862:
1919:
1899:
1037:
227:. To test their hypothesis, they determined the top 1% most productive English Knowledge users among the currently active editors who had yet to receive their first
2083:
407:
suffers from several problems. It correctly observes that the closest a Knowledge article comes to a "final", fully peer-reviewed status is after having passed the
120:
1909:
2202:
2186:
2171:
2151:
2020:
2137:
2030:
1847:
1838:
903:
2067:
1889:
1503:
Elder, D., Westbrook, R. N., & Reilly, M. (2012). Knowledge Lover, Not a Hater: Harnessing Knowledge to Increase the Discoverability of Library Resources.
1071:
399:
Xiao and Askin (2012) looked at whether academic papers could be published on Knowledge. The paper compares the publishing process on Knowledge to that of an
985:
1884:
956:
1015:
Biographical social network of the connections between persons present in at least 13 of the 15 largest language Wikipedias, as described in Aragón et al.
68:
Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Knowledge citations in academic publications; and more
2191:
Fair enough. I agree that peer recognition is good for the project and can be motivational. Guess I'm just getting skeptical at my age. Thanks. Regards,
1877:
960:
426:
In other news, however, a scientific journal appears to have found a viable way to publish peer-reviewed articles on Knowledge: The open access journal
440:
656:. An important factor behind the success of Knowledge is its own internal culture. Like any social group, a community of peer production has its own
411:
process, but makes no mention of intermediary steps in Knowledge's assessment project, such as B-class, Good Article and A-class reviews; nor is the
256:
207:
1975:
1871:
1004:
52:
41:
485:
Knowledge should not be cited. In a more surprising argument, the paper suggests that if information exists on Knowledge, it should be treated as
412:
514:
765:
520:
within two days. They show the articles with the longest comment peaks and most edit peaks, and the 20 slowest and 20 fastest discussions.
2277:
1689:
403:
journal, concluding that Knowledge's model of publishing research seems superior, particularly in terms of publicity, cost and timeliness.
203:
The relative number of edits by Wikipedians who had randomly received barnstars (red) and by the control group whose members hadn't (blue).
481:. (Since the article's data analysis ends in 2008, the question of whether this trend has rebounded in recent years is left unanswered.)
457:
The article "A Jester's Promenade: Citations to Knowledge in Law Reviews , 2002–2008" concerns the issue of citations of Knowledge in US
248:
that a seemingly random IP editor was "handing out barnstars", which led to some suspicion from Wikipedians. The thread was closed after
2177:
result should be interpreted with some healthy bit of caution, but concluding that the result is pretty dubious seems a bit much to me.
943:
notion, which sees positive or negative feedback from other users as the defining influence.) Using the analogy, the authors define the
802:: "A practical approach to language complexity: a Knowledge case study" analyzed samples of articles from the English Knowledge and the
735:: In an article titled "Knowledge Lover, Not a Hater: Harnessing Knowledge to Increase the Discoverability of Library Resources" in the
1950:
1735:
Sormunen, E., Eriksson, H., & KurkipaÌa, T. (2012). Knowledge and wikis as forums of information literacy instruction in schools.
382:
1483:
764:(as already noted in the Signpost's April 2011 coverage after the authors had presented their project at the annual meeting of the
1957:
1740:
225:
receiving recognition for one's work in an informal peer-based environment such as Knowledge has a positive effect on productivity
847:
21:
877:
interpreted the result as "Sixty percent of Knowledge articles about companies contain factual errors", although the latter was
757:
729:
is showing itself to be the second most popular online encyclopedia to be cited, if lagging significantly behind Knowledge (5%).
269:
A chapter titled "Wiktionary: a new rival for expert-built lexicons?" in a collection on electronic lexicography to appear with
2252:
1934:
1684:
Gray, D. M., & Peltier, J. (2012). Is Knowledge Reliable Tool for Marketing Educators and Students? A Surprising Heck Yes!
231:. From that group they took a random sample of 200 users. Then they randomly split the sample into an experimental group and a
415:
itself mentioned. Despite its focus on the featured-article process, no previous academic work on featured articles is cited (
2247:
2242:
669:
statistical patterns of the data can be reproduced by a simple model of cultural formation based on principles taken from
858:
572:: In the article "Exploration and Visualization of Administrator Network in Knowledge", four Chinese authors examine the
508:
1214:
2237:
1528:
Karkulahti, O., & Kangasharju, J. (2012). Surveying Knowledge activity: Collaboration, commercialism, and culture.
679:
469:
The article notes that 2006 marked the peak of that trend, attributing it (thereby demonstrating some familiarity with
1405:
933:
to the collaboration on (the English) Knowledge. The analogy is based on interpreting the edit count of a user as the
2225:
698:(AFT) version 4 on the English Knowledge over summer 2011 to ratings assigned by various peer review processes, e.g.
188:
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Knowledge and other Wikimedia projects, edited jointly with the
550:
434:
223:
Professor Arnout van de Rijt and graduate student Michael Restivo wanted to test the hypothesis according to which
1553:
Yasseri, T., Kornai, A., Kertész, J. (2012). A practical approach to language complexity: a Knowledge case study.
1125:
753:
740:
695:
1760:
Peng, H.-K., Zhang, Y., Pirolli, P., & Hogg, T. (2012). Thermodynamic Principles in Social Collaborations.
1583:
981:
971:
888:
420:
1296:
Kaltenbrunner, A., & Laniado, D. (2012). There is No Deadline – Time Evolution of Knowledge Discussions.
1715:
1245:
748:
is named. Among the successful additions to external links section is the article about former US president
2232:
1859:
644:
The proportion of "good faith" and "golden" editors among new contributors over time has remained constant.
46:
32:
17:
829:. "Mapping Knowledge edits from South America", the latest from a series of studies and visualizations by
721:
578:
1999:
I excised the Leithner & al. article. It's a conference abstract from a 2010 conference, presenting
670:
428:
562:
1032:
Restivo, M. & van de Rijt, A. (2012). Experimental Study of Informal Rewards in Peer Production.
948:
830:
1825:
1797:
1772:
1747:
1722:
1696:
1671:
1646:
1615:
1590:
1565:
1540:
1515:
1490:
1465:
1437:
1412:
1384:
1358:
1333:
1308:
1283:
1252:
1221:
1196:
1132:
1107:
1078:
1050:
1092:
1043:
870:
803:
790:
Knowledge is something to which individuals are drawn, not something specific to certain cultures."
745:
236:
1608:
1376:, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7235:496-503. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
1350:, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7235:158-169. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
1265:
Anderka, M., Stein, B., & Lipka, N. (2011). Towards automatic quality assurance in Knowledge.
815:
270:
1659:
DiStaso, M. W. (2012). Measuring Public Relations Knowledge Engagement: How Bright is the Rule?
1325:, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7235:46-59. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
1120:
Xiao, L., & Askin, N. (2012). Knowledge for Academic Publishing: Advantages and Challenges.
925:: A paper titled "Thermodynamic Principles in Social Collaborations" (presented at this month's
193:
2045:
1988:
810:
as well as other measures for language complexity. Comparing them with other corpora including
674:
557:
APWeb2012 papers on admin networks, mitigating language bias and finding "minority information"
213:
212:
To gain insight in what makes Knowledge tick, two researchers from the Sociology Department at
1209:
Baker, D. J. (2012). A Jester's Promenade: Citations to Knowledge in Law Reviews, 2002–2008.
930:
640:
474:
158:
1453:
Hyland, A. (2012). Comparing article quality by article class and article feedback ratings.
878:
874:
683:
Distribution of AFT ratings for articles in different project quality assessment categories.
2258:
1159:
716:: An article in the "Research Trends" newsletter published by the bibliographical database
494:
verification) to rely on "common knowledge" as represented in the "do not cite" Knowledge.
470:
265:
Wiktionary received an extensive assessment as a potential rival to expert-built lexicons.
8:
2079:
792:
Last year, papers by two other teams (covered in the September issue of this newsletter:
573:
463:
416:
178:
1664:
1163:
2110:
2092:
1181:
1147:
586:
478:
450:
297:
228:
217:
1400:
Halfaker, A. (2012). Kids these days: the quality of new Knowledge editors over time.
1276:
199:
2102:
2041:
2016:
1984:
1941:
1639:
1186:
1019:
994:
887:: The proceedings of the recent "International Collegiate Conference Faculty" of the
807:
784:
761:
749:
665:
249:
174:
170:
150:
2101:
silliest systems are where BLP templates/cats don't match the non-BLP versions. The
2196:
2165:
2131:
1177:
1167:
1146:
Wodak, S. J.; Mietchen, D.; Collings, A. M.; Russell, R. B.; Bourne, P. E. (2012).
834:
continent's Internet population -- contributes more than 12% of edits to Knowledge.
486:
1785:
Kane, G. C., & Ransbotham, S. (2012). Collaborative Development in Knowledge.
1508:
1377:
1351:
1236:
Proceedings of the 2nd Joint WICOW/AIRWeb Workshop on Web Quality – WebQuality '12
1000:
597:
2182:
2147:
2063:
1326:
1172:
811:
800:
Simple English Knowledge is only partially simpler/controversy reduces complexity
707:
1533:
1234:
Anderka, M., & Stein, B. (2012). A breakdown of quality flaws in Knowledge.
1100:
2075:
1973:
1714:, BR, 94-B(SUPP XIV), 13. British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery.
633:
542:
524:
that some editing peaks are associated with event anniversaries. They use the
445:
2000:
419:). Crucially, the paper disregards the most relevant of Knowledge's policies,
387:
2271:
2106:
2089:
1633:
1628:
Atzori, M., & Zaniolo, C. (2012). SWiPE: Searching wikipedia by example.
1270:
1239:
694:: An upcoming presentation at Wikimania 2012 compares data gathered from the
601:
Not what the majority of readers search for under "football": A goalball game
498:
One in four of articles tagged as flawed, most often for verifiability issues
408:
302:
232:
1630:
Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion on World Wide Web
1267:
Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World Wide Web
692:
Matching reader feedback via the Article Feedback Tool to editor peer review
565:
of this month's Asia-Pacific Web Conference APWeb2012 concerned Knowledge:
2012:
1189:
1011:
934:
892:
773:
726:
703:
699:
664:
and Wikimedia Foundation contractor analyst Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, uses
623:
Completing Knowledge articles with information from other language versions
590:
538:
525:
182:
162:
154:
1686:
Marketing Always Evolving. 34th Annual International Collegiate Conference
781:
Weekly and daily activity patterns discern Knowledge from commercial sites
661:
2192:
2161:
2127:
952:
657:
582:
400:
392:
166:
1737:
The Road to Information Literacy: Librarians as Facilitators of Learning
926:
760:
showing Bush shaking hands with former University of Houston chancellor
2178:
2143:
2059:
1458:
978:
The most influential biographies vary depending on the language/culture
923:
Knowledge as a thermodynamic system - becoming more efficient over time
458:
986:
graph of the connections found in at least 13 of the language editions
770:
Experts and GLAMs – contributing content or 'just' links to Knowledge?
1968:
1427:
User participation and community formation in peer production systems
939:
261:
896:
demonstrating Knowledge is an accurate source of marketing content."
612:
371:
367:
336:
1632:- WWW '12 Companion (p. 309). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
1430:
1967:
Another interesting research report! Thanks to all contributors.
1818:
1790:
1765:
1558:
1301:
989:
944:
714:
Referencing of Knowledge in academic works is continuing unabated
626:
533:
316:
1578:
Graham, M. (2012). Mapping Knowledge edits from South America.
717:
279:
819:
619:’." The authors constructed a prototype system and tested it.
608:
541:'s talk page took 332 days to increase h-index by one, while
366:
frequently overlooked. The discussion of the organization of
1211:
I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society
1145:
2088:
We probably have a clean-up tag to clean up clean-up tags!
2074:
Wow! We have 388 different clean-up tags? I had no idea! --
616:
282:
covered, which the authors found to be surprisingly small.
863:
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Knowledge Engagement
1148:"Topic Pages: PLoS Computational Biology Meets Knowledge"
1530:
The International Conference on Information Network 2012
2031:
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
904:
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
733:
Using Knowledge to drive traffic to library collections
246:
noted on the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page
1478:
Huggett, S. (2012). The influence of 💕s on science.
1001:
The Worrying Consequences of the Knowledge Gender Gap
648:
Unchanged quality of new user contributions over time
2058:
A very thorough survey, good work! Thanks for that!
885:
Knowledge coverage of marketing terms found accurate
2156:It is a valid result for highly productive editors
1955:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
1739:. IFLA 2012 Congress Satellite Meeting (pp. 1-23).
505:
summarized in an earlier edition of this newsletter
654:Modeling Knowledge's community formation processes
2105:WikiProject might need a restart/reinvigoration.
1605:Death and Change Tracking : Knowledge Edit Bursts
1429:. PhD Thesis, Università della Svizzera Italiana
929:conference) applies principles and concepts from
917:Knowledge assignments for Finnish school students
794:Wikipedians' weekends in international comparison
2269:
1817:. Computers and Society; Physics and Society,
1300:. Computers and Society; Physics and Society.
1124:, 36(3), 2. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
766:Association of College and Research Libraries
605:Detecting "minority information" on Knowledge
148:
1062:
1060:
441:Knowledge citations in American law reviews
2011:at the time it was published in mid-2010.
1396:
1394:
900:Knowledge's osteosarcoma coverage assessed
857:. A study published in the journal of the
257:Can Wiktionary rival traditional lexicons?
220:. They were surprised by what they found.
208:Recognition may sustain user participation
1809:
1807:
1180:
1171:
1057:
855:Knowledge in the eyes of PR professionals
806:from the end of 2010 with respect to the
570:Prototype tool searches for expert admins
1010:
678:
639:
596:
444:
417:although quite a few have been published
386:
260:
198:
1958:
1449:
1447:
1391:
867:Spin doctors spin Jimmy's 'bright line'
515:Time evolution of Knowledge discussions
14:
2270:
1804:
51:
1444:
2278:Knowledge Signpost archives 2012-04
2158:that have never received a barnstar
1712:Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
1070:. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
968:Too many docs don't spoil the broth
859:Public Relations Society of America
509:Category:Main topic classifications
383:Knowledge as an academic publisher?
27:
1858:
53:
31:
28:
2289:
1940:These comments are automatically
1374:Web Technologies and Applications
1348:Web Technologies and Applications
1323:Web Technologies and Applications
1824:
1796:
1771:
1746:
1721:
1695:
1670:
1645:
1614:
1589:
1564:
1539:
1514:
1489:
1464:
1436:
1411:
1383:
1357:
1332:
1307:
1282:
1269:– WWW '11. New York: ACM Press.
1251:
1220:
1195:
1131:
1106:
1077:
1049:
827:Contributions from South America
435:circular permutation in proteins
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
1779:
1754:
1729:
1703:
1678:
1653:
1622:
1597:
1572:
1547:
1522:
1497:
1472:
1419:
1365:
1340:
1315:
1099:, November 6, 2006, pp. 78-86.
741:University of Houston Libraries
473:) to a delayed reaction to the
1951:add the page to your watchlist
1290:
1259:
1238:(p. 11). New York: ACM Press.
1228:
1203:
1139:
1114:
1085:
1026:
982:Jaccard similarity coefficient
889:American Marketing Association
13:
1:
391:Can Knowledge integrate with
288:Number of native terms (p.17)
216:conducted an experiment with
194:Wikimedia Research Newsletter
1926:
1557:. Computation and Language.
1505:Journal of Web Librarianship
1173:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002446
927:Collective Intelligence 2012
737:Journal of Web Librarianship
722:compound annual growth rates
190:Wikimedia Research Committee
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
838:Deaths generate edit bursts
752:, where the student intern
739:, two librarians from the
725:reference). Interestingly,
579:Latent Dirichlet allocation
10:
2294:
1507:, 6(1), 32-44. Routledge.
1425:Ciampaglia, G. L. (2011).
1152:PLOS Computational Biology
938:also explain the observed
671:self-categorization theory
429:PLoS Computational Biology
409:featured article candidate
1402:Wikimedia Foundation blog
1122:Online Information Review
831:Oxford Internet Institute
774:external links guidelines
662:Summer of Research fellow
658:rules, norms, and customs
355:130,062 (Russian WordNet)
1661:Public Relations Journal
804:Simple English Knowledge
746:1915 Galveston hurricane
179:Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia
2203:21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
2187:21:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
2172:20:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
2152:17:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
2138:16:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
2115:16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
2096:20:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2084:12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
2068:17:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
2050:22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
2021:17:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
1993:10:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
1976:09:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
1764:. Physics and Society.
1068:Electronic Lexicography
871:of the author's college
816:British National Corpus
271:Oxford University Press
192:and republished as the
1948:. To follow comments,
1863:
1016:
684:
675:social judgment theory
645:
602:
545:'s took only 71 days.
454:
396:
266:
214:Stony Brook University
204:
36:
2220:What do you think of
1862:
1532:(pp. 384-389). IEEE.
1014:
931:Statistical mechanics
696:Article Feedback Tool
682:
643:
600:
475:Seigenthaler incident
448:
395:scholarly publishing?
390:
264:
202:
35:
2226:Share your feedback.
1944:from this article's
1603:Lincoln, M. (2012).
972:WikiProject Medicine
844:Searching by example
421:no original research
240:observation period.
1851:"Recent research" →
1164:2012PLSCB...8E2446W
1091:Lepore, J. (2006).
848:WWW 2012 conference
666:computer simulation
574:collaboration graph
471:Knowledge's history
1935:Discuss this story
1915:Arbitration report
1905:WikiProject report
1864:
1017:
1005:Summary at AcaWiki
957:entropy efficiency
685:
646:
603:
479:Essjay Controversy
455:
451:Harvard Law Review
413:assessment project
397:
267:
205:
42:← Back to Contents
37:
1959:purging the cache
1920:Technology report
1900:Discussion report
1843:"Recent research"
995:Technology Review
992:. A blog post on
961:entropy reduction
808:Gunning fog index
785:Helsingin Sanomat
762:Philip G. Hoffman
750:George H. W. Bush
704:featured articles
491:OHIO N.U. L. REV.
363:
362:
298:Roget's Thesaurus
250:User:Mike Restivo
167:Dario Taraborelli
47:View Latest Issue
2285:
2261:
1962:
1960:
1954:
1933:
1910:Featured content
1882:
1874:
1867:
1850:
1842:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1811:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1783:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1758:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1733:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1707:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1682:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1657:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1626:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1601:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1576:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1551:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1526:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1501:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1476:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1451:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1423:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1398:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1369:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1344:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1319:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1294:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1263:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1232:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1207:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1193:
1184:
1175:
1143:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1118:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1089:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1064:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1030:
487:common knowledge
449:Volume 1 of the
349:Russian language
309:English language
285:
284:
185:
159:Jodi.a.schneider
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
2293:
2292:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2257:
2255:
2250:
2245:
2240:
2235:
2228:
2217:
2216:
1964:
1956:
1949:
1938:
1937:
1931:+ Add a comment
1929:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1895:Recent research
1875:
1870:
1868:
1865:
1854:
1853:
1848:
1845:
1840:
1834:
1833:
1823:
1812:
1805:
1795:
1784:
1780:
1770:
1759:
1755:
1745:
1734:
1730:
1720:
1708:
1704:
1694:
1683:
1679:
1669:
1658:
1654:
1644:
1627:
1623:
1613:
1602:
1598:
1588:
1577:
1573:
1563:
1552:
1548:
1538:
1527:
1523:
1513:
1502:
1498:
1488:
1480:Research Trends
1477:
1473:
1463:
1452:
1445:
1435:
1424:
1420:
1410:
1399:
1392:
1382:
1370:
1366:
1356:
1345:
1341:
1331:
1320:
1316:
1306:
1295:
1291:
1281:
1264:
1260:
1250:
1233:
1229:
1219:
1208:
1204:
1194:
1158:(3): e1002446.
1144:
1140:
1130:
1119:
1115:
1105:
1090:
1086:
1076:
1065:
1058:
1048:
1031:
1027:
1022:
846:: This month's
812:Charles Dickens
636:
563:accepted papers
561:Several of the
559:
551:AcaWiki summary
517:
500:
464:permanent links
443:
385:
329:German language
259:
210:
197:
186:
163:Amir E. Aharoni
155:Piotr Konieczny
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
65:Recent research
62:
60:
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2291:
2281:
2280:
2256:
2251:
2246:
2241:
2236:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2219:
2218:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2124:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2071:
2070:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2024:
2023:
1996:
1995:
1979:
1978:
1939:
1936:
1928:
1927:
1922:
1917:
1912:
1907:
1902:
1897:
1892:
1890:News and notes
1887:
1881:
1869:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1846:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1803:
1778:
1753:
1728:
1702:
1677:
1652:
1621:
1596:
1580:Zero Geography
1571:
1546:
1521:
1496:
1471:
1443:
1418:
1390:
1364:
1339:
1314:
1289:
1258:
1227:
1202:
1138:
1113:
1097:The New Yorker
1084:
1056:
1036:7(3): e34358.
1024:
1023:
1021:
1018:
1009:
1008:
975:
965:
920:
914:
897:
882:
852:
841:
835:
824:
797:
791:
788:
778:
730:
711:
708:identification
689:
686:
651:
635:
632:
631:
630:
620:
594:
558:
555:
543:George W. Bush
516:
513:
499:
496:
442:
439:
384:
381:
361:
360:
358:
356:
353:
350:
346:
345:
342:
340:
333:
330:
326:
325:
323:
320:
313:
310:
306:
305:
300:
295:
292:
289:
258:
255:
209:
206:
187:
175:Steven Walling
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2290:
2279:
2276:
2275:
2273:
2260:
2254:
2249:
2244:
2239:
2234:
2227:
2223:
2204:
2200:
2199:
2194:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2169:
2168:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2135:
2134:
2129:
2122:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2094:
2091:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2072:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2056:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2037:
2032:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1997:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1981:
1980:
1977:
1974:
1972:
1971:
1966:
1965:
1961:
1952:
1947:
1943:
1932:
1921:
1918:
1916:
1913:
1911:
1908:
1906:
1903:
1901:
1898:
1896:
1893:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1873:
1872:30 April 2012
1866:In this issue
1861:
1852:
1844:
1827:
1822:
1821:
1816:
1810:
1808:
1799:
1794:
1793:
1788:
1782:
1774:
1769:
1768:
1763:
1757:
1749:
1744:
1743:
1738:
1732:
1724:
1719:
1718:
1713:
1706:
1698:
1693:
1692:
1687:
1681:
1673:
1668:
1667:
1662:
1656:
1648:
1643:
1642:
1637:
1636:
1631:
1625:
1617:
1612:
1611:
1606:
1600:
1592:
1587:
1586:
1581:
1575:
1567:
1562:
1561:
1556:
1550:
1542:
1537:
1536:
1531:
1525:
1517:
1512:
1511:
1506:
1500:
1492:
1487:
1486:
1481:
1475:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1456:
1450:
1448:
1439:
1434:
1433:
1428:
1422:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1403:
1397:
1395:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1375:
1368:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1349:
1343:
1335:
1330:
1329:
1324:
1318:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1299:
1293:
1285:
1280:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1268:
1262:
1254:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1242:
1237:
1231:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1213:, 7(2):1–44.
1212:
1206:
1198:
1191:
1188:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1142:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1117:
1109:
1104:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1088:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1069:
1063:
1061:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1035:
1029:
1025:
1013:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
973:
969:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
941:
936:
932:
928:
924:
921:
918:
915:
912:
910:
905:
901:
898:
894:
890:
886:
883:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
853:
849:
845:
842:
839:
836:
832:
828:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
798:
795:
786:
782:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
742:
738:
734:
731:
728:
723:
719:
715:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
690:
681:
676:
672:
667:
663:
659:
655:
652:
649:
642:
638:
637:
628:
624:
621:
618:
614:
610:
606:
599:
595:
592:
588:
587:Mike Selinker
584:
580:
575:
571:
568:
567:
566:
564:
554:
552:
546:
544:
540:
535:
532:They use the
530:
527:
521:
512:
510:
506:
495:
492:
488:
482:
480:
476:
472:
467:
465:
460:
452:
447:
438:
436:
431:
430:
424:
422:
418:
414:
410:
404:
402:
394:
389:
380:
376:
373:
369:
359:
357:
354:
351:
348:
347:
343:
341:
338:
334:
331:
328:
327:
324:
321:
318:
314:
311:
308:
307:
304:
303:OpenThesaurus
301:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
286:
283:
281:
275:
272:
263:
254:
251:
247:
241:
238:
237:significantly
234:
233:control group
230:
226:
221:
219:
215:
201:
195:
191:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
54:30 April 2012
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
2222:The Signpost
2221:
2197:
2166:
2157:
2132:
2042:Tbayer (WMF)
2035:
2008:
1985:David Gerard
1969:
1894:
1885:Paid editing
1878:all comments
1819:
1814:
1791:
1786:
1781:
1766:
1761:
1756:
1741:
1736:
1731:
1716:
1711:
1705:
1690:
1685:
1680:
1665:
1660:
1655:
1640:
1634:
1629:
1624:
1609:
1604:
1599:
1584:
1579:
1574:
1559:
1554:
1549:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1509:
1504:
1499:
1484:
1479:
1474:
1459:
1454:
1431:
1426:
1421:
1406:
1401:
1378:
1373:
1367:
1352:
1347:
1342:
1327:
1322:
1317:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1277:
1271:
1266:
1261:
1246:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1215:
1210:
1205:
1155:
1151:
1141:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1101:
1096:
1087:
1072:
1067:
1044:
1038:
1033:
1028:
993:
977:
967:
935:energy level
922:
916:
908:
899:
893:Likert scale
884:
854:
843:
837:
826:
799:
780:
736:
732:
727:Scholarpedia
713:
691:
653:
647:
622:
604:
569:
560:
547:
539:Bill Clinton
531:
526:Barack Obama
522:
518:
501:
490:
483:
468:
456:
453:(1887–1888).
427:
425:
405:
398:
377:
364:
276:
268:
242:
224:
222:
211:
189:
171:Tilman Bayer
2259:Suggestions
2005:was covered
1942:transcluded
1093:Noah's Mark
953:temperature
949:free energy
459:law reviews
401:open-access
393:open-access
2103:WP:CLEANUP
1020:References
758:photograph
291:Wiktionary
79:Share this
74:Contribute
22:2012-04-30
2253:Subscribe
2076:bodnotbod
2033:(JAMIA) (
1946:talk page
1455:Knowledge
940:power law
906:(JAMIA) (
851:language.
315:148,730 (
218:barnstars
2272:Category
2248:Newsroom
2243:Archives
2107:The-Pope
2038:coverage
2036:Signpost
2009:Signpost
2001:research
1841:Previous
1482:, (27).
1190:22479174
1034:PLoS ONE
911:coverage
909:Signpost
615:’, and ‘
613:Goalball
477:and the
372:homonymy
368:polysemy
337:GermaNet
335:85,211 (
294:wordnets
229:barnstar
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
2013:Circéus
2007:in the
1663:, 6(2)
1182:3315447
1160:Bibcode
990:DBPedia
945:entropy
879:updated
875:of PRSA
634:Briefly
627:cricket
591:Bearcat
534:h-index
352:133,435
344:58,208
317:WordNet
312:352,865
280:lexemes
183:Protonk
151:Lambiam
111:Twitter
820:tokens
754:linked
718:Scopus
583:Michig
433:about
332:83,399
322:59,391
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
2238:About
2179:Nageh
2144:Nageh
2060:Nageh
2003:that
1815:ArXiV
1787:ArXiv
1762:ArXiV
1555:ArXiv
1298:ArXiV
609:Bandy
16:<
2233:Home
2198:talk
2183:talk
2167:talk
2148:talk
2133:talk
2111:talk
2093:lute
2090:Reso
2080:talk
2064:talk
2046:talk
2017:talk
1989:talk
1970:Pine
1849:Next
1717:HTML
1666:HTML
1585:HTML
1485:HTML
1460:HTML
1407:HTML
1187:PMID
1127:HTML
1102:HTML
1003:". (
959:and
873:and
702:and
700:good
673:and
617:Cuju
611:’, ‘
589:and
370:and
181:and
141:Digg
2193:RJH
2162:RJH
2128:RJH
1820:PDF
1792:PDF
1767:PDF
1742:PDF
1691:PDF
1641:PDF
1635:DOI
1610:PDF
1560:PDF
1535:DOI
1510:DOI
1432:PDF
1379:DOI
1353:DOI
1328:DOI
1303:PDF
1278:PDF
1272:DOI
1247:PDF
1241:DOI
1216:PDF
1178:PMC
1168:doi
1073:PDF
1045:DOI
1039:PDF
768:: "
756:a
149:By
76:—
2274::
2224:?
2201:)
2185:)
2170:)
2150:)
2136:)
2113:)
2082:)
2066:)
2048:)
2019:)
1991:)
1839:←
1806:^
1789:.
1688:.
1638:•
1607:.
1582:.
1457:.
1446:^
1404:.
1393:^
1275:•
1244:•
1185:.
1176:.
1166:.
1154:.
1150:.
1095:,
1059:^
1042:•
955:,
951:,
947:,
913:).
677:.
585:,
553:)
437:.
177:,
173:,
169:,
165:,
161:,
157:,
153:,
2195:(
2181:(
2164:(
2146:(
2130:(
2109:(
2078:(
2062:(
2044:(
2015:(
1987:(
1963:.
1953:.
1880:)
1876:(
1192:.
1170::
1162::
1156:8
1007:)
999:"
974:.
710:.
549:(
339:)
319:)
196:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
