ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Crowdsourcing Knowledge Production of COVID-19 Information on Japanese Wikipedia in the Face of Uncertainty: Empirical Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundA worldwide overabundance of information comprising misinformation, rumors, and propaganda concerning COVID-19 has been observed in addition to the pandemic. By addressing this data confusion, Wikipedia has become an important source of information.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate how the editors of Wikipedia have handled COVID-19-related information. Specifically, it focused on 2 questions: What were the knowledge preferences of the editors who participated in producing COVID-19-related information? and How did editors with different knowledge preferences collaborate?
methodsThis study used a large-scale data set, including >2 million edits in the histories of 1857 editors who edited 133 articles related to COVID-19 on Japanese Wikipedia. Machine learning methods, including graph neural network methods, Bayesian inference, and Granger causality analysis, were used to establish the editors' topic proclivity and collaboration patterns.
resultsOverall, 3 trends were observed. Two groups of editors were involved in the production of information on COVID-19. One group had a strong preference for sociopolitical topics (social-political group), and the other group strongly preferred scientific and medical topics (scientific-medical group). The social-political group played a central role (contributing 16,544,495/23,485,683, 70.04% of bits of content and 57,969/76,673, 75.61% of the references) in the information production part of the COVID-19 articles on Wikipedia, whereas the scientific-medical group played only a secondary role. The severity of the pandemic in Japan activated the editing behaviors of the social-political group, leading them to contribute more to COVID-19 information production on Wikipedia while simultaneously deactivating the editing behaviors of the scientific-medical group, resulting in their less contribution to COVID-19 information production on Wikipedia (Pearson correlation coefficient=0.231; P<.001).
conclusionsThe results of this study showed that lay experts (ie, Wikipedia editors) in the fields of science and medicine tended to remain silent when facing high scientific uncertainty related to the pandemic. Considering the high quality of the COVID-19-related articles on Japanese Wikipedia, this research also suggested that the sidelining of the science and medicine editors in discussions is not necessarily a problem. Instead, the social and political context of the issues with high scientific uncertainty is more important than the scientific discussions that support accuracy.
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.