Wikipedia/Bibliography

Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner. For formatting, consider using automated reference wikification.

Papers

• Priedhorsky, R., J. Chen, S.K. Lam, K. Panciera, L. Terveen and J. Riedl (2007) 'Creating, destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia'. Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work.
• A widely cited and debated study which compared the accuracy of 42 entries each in the English Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, concluding that both had similar numbers of factual errors.

Jim Giles (15 December 2005). "Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head". Nature 438: pp. 900-901.

Supplementary information to accompany Nature news article “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”. Nature (22 December 2005). Retrieved on 2011-10-28.

Response by Encyclopedia Brittanica

Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc. (March 2006). Retrieved on 2011-10-28..

Nature's return salvo:

Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica (March 30, 2006). Retrieved on 2011-10-28.

Books

• Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, Ben Yates (2008). How Wikipedia works: and how you can be a part of it. No Starch Press. ISBN 159327176X.  A detailed discussion of how WP works, including the arbitration processes. Some subsidiary web links are found here.

• John Broughton (2008). Wikipedia: the missing manual. O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN 0596515162.  A "how-to" manual that besides mechanics of use, includes sections on dispute resolution over both content (Chapter 10: Resolving content disputes) and personal attacks (Chapter 11: Handling incivility and personal attacks).

• Andrew Lih (2009). The Wikipedia revolution: How a bunch of nobodies created the world's greatest encyclopedia. London: Aurum. ISBN 9781845134730.  Forward by Jimmy Wales. An enthusiast's attempt at a history of Wikipedia, faulted for some gaffes by reviewers on Amazon.

• Dan Woods, Peter Thoeny (2007). “Chapter 4: Using and improving the 800-pound gorilla of wikis, Wikipedia”, Wikis for dummies. Wiley, pp. 81 ff. ISBN 0470043997.  A basic "how-to" manual for readers and first-time contributors.

Statistics and trends

• Benjamin Mako Hill (February 6, 2011). Editor-to-Reader Ratios on Wikipedia. Copyrighteous. Retrieved on 2011-10-27. This article states that since 2008 the number of active editors has decreased 12%, while the proportion of readers that edit at least five times a month has dropped 42%.
• Community health. Interviews/Summary of interviews. Wikimedia: Strategic planning (2009). Retrieved on 2011-10-27. A summary of opinion that the WP community is becoming more isolated and hostile to newcomers with time, and inventing its own jargon, creating a "tiny priesthood that can edit".

Commentary

• Nick Bilton (September 9, 2010). The Story Behind a Wikipedia Entry. BITS: Business, Innovation, Technology and Society. New York Times. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. An article discussing the insight provided by subpages in WP articles.
• Naom Cohen (September 11, 2011). On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’. Business Day Media and Advertising: Link by link. New York Times. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. An article discussing how fringe views are handled on Wikipedia using the example of the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center .
• Donna Shaw (February/March 2008). Wikipedia in the Newsroom. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. An article presenting what now appears to be becoming an "old-fashioned" view of WP as a news source.
• Mike Melanson (March 15, 2010). Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. A review of a panel discussion concerning (among other topics) the use of Wikipedia as a news source, and involving Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo, Moka Panteges of Wikimedia, Monica Guzman of seattlepi and Robert Mackey of the New York Times on the topic: "Process Journalism: Getting it First, While Getting it Right" .
• Danny Groner (November 30th, 2009). A New York Times First? Wikipedia Cited as a News Source. MEDIAite. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. A discussion of the propriety of using WP as a news source for independently verifiable facts.
• Adam R. Brown (April 8, 2010). "Wikipedia as a Data Source for Political Scientists: Accuracy and Completeness of Coverage". PS: Political Science & Politics 44: pp. 339-343. “Wikipedia is almost always accurate when a relevant article exists, but errors of omission are extremely frequent.”

Initiatives

• The coverage of Italian companies on Wikipedia. Lundquist Research Series (May 2009). Retrieved on 2011=10-29. “Companies must engage with Wikipedia in order to improve their online profile.”
• Wikipedia initiative. APS: Association for Psychological Science. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. “All APS members are encouraged to participate by adding new entries and enhancing existing ones with more complete and accurate information with references.”
• Articles Containing "Wikipedia" — 36 articles. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. Follow-up on the initiative by APS.
• Don’t like Wikipedia? Change it. American Psychological Association. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. “Using our combined knowledge to edit and update Wikipedia is a high-impact and immediate way to increase the presence of psychological science”
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2011-10-29.
• Sage Ross (30 May 2011). Wikipedia and the psychologists. assorted blogging by Sage Ross. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. A report on the APS initiative by an "online facilitator" of the Wikimedia Foundation.
• Public Policy Initiative. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. “Professors at public policy programs in universities in the United States are participating in our initiative by asking their students to improve articles on the English-language Wikipedia as part of the curriculum.”
• Zoe Corbyn (28 March 2011). Wikipedia wants more contributions from academics. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2011-10-29. “Wikipedia is surveying academics to find out why many seem reluctant to donate their expertise.”