ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014
Motivations for contributing to health-related articles on Wikipedia: an interview study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Wikipedia: Quantitative Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- How large language models can reshape collective intelligence.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- Public Awareness of the Fencing Response as an Indicator of Traumatic Brain Injury: Quantitative Study of Twitter and Wikipedia Data.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Assessment of the digestive system malignancy information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: a longitudinal study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Readability of English, German, and Russian Disease-Related Wikipedia Pages: Automated Computational Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Library instruction and Wikipedia: investigating students' perceived information literacy, lifelong learning, and social responsibility through Wikipedia editing.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the Liver Disease Information in Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia: Longitudinal Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Privacy Protection in Online Health Communities: Natural Experimental Empirical Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Article
- Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2017Article
- The Impact of Topic Characteristics and Threat on Willingness to Engage with Wikipedia Articles: Insights from Laboratory Experiments.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Professional Use of Social Media by Pharmacists: A Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Article
- Wikipedia and medicine: quantifying readership, editors, and the significance of natural language.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWikipedia is one of the most accessed sources of health information online. The current English-language Wikipedia contains more than 28,000 articles pertaining to health.
objectiveThe aim was to characterize individuals' motivations for contributing to health content on the English-language Wikipedia.
methodsA set of health-related articles were randomly selected and recent contributors invited to complete an online questionnaire and follow-up interview (by Skype, by email, or face-to-face). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis and a realist grounded theory approach.
resultsA total of 32 Wikipedians (31 men) completed the questionnaire and 17 were interviewed. Those completing the questionnaire had a mean age of 39 (range 12-59) years; 16 had a postgraduate qualification, 10 had or were currently studying for an undergraduate qualification, 3 had no more than secondary education, and 3 were still in secondary education. In all, 15 were currently working in a health-related field (primarily clinicians). The median period for which they have been an active editing Wikipedia was 3-5 years. Of this group, 12 were in the United States, 6 were in the United Kingdom, 4 were in Canada, and the remainder from another 8 countries. Two-thirds spoke more than 1 language and 90% (29/32) were also active contributors in domains other than health. Wikipedians in this study were identified as health professionals, professionals with specific health interests, students, and individuals with health problems. Based on the interviews, their motivations for editing health-related content were summarized in 5 strongly interrelated categories: education (learning about subjects by editing articles), help (wanting to improve and maintain Wikipedia), responsibility (responsibility, often a professional responsibility, to provide good quality health information to readers), fulfillment (editing Wikipedia as a fun, relaxing, engaging, and rewarding activity), and positive attitude to Wikipedia (belief in the value of Wikipedia). An additional factor, hostility (from other contributors), was identified that negatively affected Wikipedians' motivations.
conclusionsContributions to Wikipedia's health-related content in this study were made by both health specialists and laypeople of varying editorial skills. Their motivations for contributing stem from an inherent drive based on values, standards, and beliefs. It became apparent that the community who most actively monitor and edit health-related articles is very small. Although some contributors correspond to a model of "knowledge philanthropists," others were focused on maintaining articles (improving spelling and grammar, organization, and handling vandalism). There is a need for more people to be involved in Wikipedia's health-related content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.