ArticlePloS one2017
A productive clash of perspectives? The interplay between articles' and authors' perspectives and their impact on Wikipedia edits in a controversial domain.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Wikipedia: Quantitative Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- How article category in Wikipedia determines the heterogeneity of its editors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effects of Contributor Experience on the Quality of Health-Related Wikipedia Articles.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- The Impact of Topic Characteristics and Threat on Willingness to Engage with Wikipedia Articles: Insights from Laboratory Experiments.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined predictors of the development of Wikipedia articles that deal with controversial issues. We chose a corpus of articles in the German-language version of Wikipedia about alternative medicine as a representative controversial issue. We extracted edits made until March 2013 and categorized them using a supervised machine learning setup as either being pro conventional medicine, pro alternative medicine, or neutral. Based on these categories, we established relevant variables, such as the perspectives of articles and of authors at certain points in time, the (im)balance of an article's perspective, the number of non-neutral edits per article, the number of authors per article, authors' heterogeneity per article, and incongruity between authors' and articles' perspectives. The underlying objective was to predict the development of articles' perspectives with regard to the controversial topic. The empirical part of the study is embedded in theoretical considerations about editorial biases and the effectiveness of norms and rules in Wikipedia, such as the neutral point of view policy. Our findings revealed a selection bias where authors edited mainly articles with perspectives similar to their own viewpoint. Regression analyses showed that an author's perspective as well as the article's previous perspectives predicted the perspective of the resulting edits, albeit both predictors interact with each other. Further analyses indicated that articles with more non-neutral edits were altogether more balanced. We also found a positive effect of the number of authors and of the authors' heterogeneity on articles' balance. However, while the effect of the number of authors was reserved to pro-conventional medicine articles, the authors' heterogenity effect was restricted to pro-alternative medicine articles. Finally, we found a negative effect of incongruity between authors' and articles' perspectives that was pronounced for the pro-alternative medicine articles.
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.