Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ARUdAarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

Peer collaboration or hierarchy? The epistemic reliability of Wikipedia needs both

Authors: Federico Pilati; Pierluigi Sacco; Oriol Artime;

Peer collaboration or hierarchy? The epistemic reliability of Wikipedia needs both

Abstract

Purpose Our paper aims to address an open question in the scientific literature about Wikipedia: the structural logic behind two seemingly contradictory trends – peer-leveraged crowdsourcing and gatekeeping of core participation. Design/methodology/approach Using the complete dataset of the English, Spanish, and Italian versions of Wikipedia (2001–2020), we analyzed metrics such as the number of articles, creations, or edits performed by users. We calculated their distributions, adapted the Gini index to measure participation inequalities and employed network science methods to understand user-edit interactions. Findings Our analysis confirms significant disparities in content generation and engagement, emphasizing content editing. However, we demonstrate that these differences coexist with extensive collaboration. Specifically, our findings reveal that disparities in participation levels and collaborative editing complement each other. Curatorial leadership by a central group of contributors is extremely collaborative, while occasional contributors intervene flexibly in specific contexts. Originality/value High participation levels do not necessarily equate to high engagement. Our analysis shows that the inequalities in agency characterizing Wikipedia’s creation and editing process stem from a high barrier to curatorship. This inequality fosters the self-selection of highly committed editors, whose sustained efforts underpin large-scale collaboration. Such collaboration, in turn, encourages new contributors to make occasional yet valuable interventions. This interplay between sustained curatorial efforts and flexible participation is a cornerstone of Wikipedia’s success.

Country
Italy
Related Organizations
Keywords

Digital knowledge production; Digital participation; Wikipedia

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green