Mediaboss Marketing

from the share-the-knowledge dept

Open access has been discussedmany timeshere on Techdirt. There are several strands to its story. Its about allowing the public to access research they have paid for through tax-funded grants, without needing to take out often expensive subscriptions to academic titles. Its about saving educational institutions money that they are currently spending on over-priced academic journals, and which could be better spent elsewhere. Its about helping to spread knowledge without the friction that traditional publishing introduces, ideally moving to licenses that allow academic research papers to be distributed freely and without restrictions.

But theres another aspect that receives less attention, revealed here by a new paper that looks at how open access articles are used in a particular and important context that of Wikipedia. There is a natural synergy between the two, which both aim to make access to knowledge easier.The paper seeks to quantify that:

we analyze a large dataset of citations from Wikipedia and model the role of open access in Wikipedias citation patterns. We find that open-access articles are extensively and increasingly more cited in Wikipedia. What is more, they show a 15% higher likelihood of being cited in Wikipedia when compared to closed-access articles, after controlling for confounding factors. This open-access citation effect is particularly strong for articles with low citation counts, including recently published ones. Our results show that open access plays a key role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge, including by providing Wikipedia editors timely access to novel results. These findings have important implications for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in the field of information science and technology.

What this means in practice is that for the general public open access articles are even more beneficial than those published in traditional titles, since they frequently turn up as Wikipedia sources that can be consulted directly. They are also advantageous for the researchers who write them, since their work is more likely to be cited on the widely-read and influential Wikipedia than if the papers were not open access. As the research notes, this effect is even more pronounced for articles with low citation counts basically, academic work that may be important but is rather obscure. This new paper provides yet another compelling reason why researchers should be publishing their work as open access as a matter of course: out of pure self interest.

Follow me @glynmoody onMastodon. Originally posted to the Walled Culture blog.

Filed Under: access to information, open access, research, sharing knowledge, studies Companies: wikipedia

Go here to read the rest:
Open Access Makes Research More Widely Cited, Helping Spread ... - Techdirt

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A Russian court on Tuesday fined the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, 3 million roubles ($36,854) for refusing to delete an article on Ukraine's Azov battalion, the Interfax news agency reported.

Wikimedia did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

It has previously said information that Russian authorities complained about was well-sourced and in line with Wikipedia standards.

The Azov battalion, a unit of Ukraine's military, has been designated a terrorist group by Russia.

Wikipedia is one of the few surviving independent sources of information in Russia since a state crackdown on online content intensified after Moscow sent its armed forces into Ukraine.

Russia has said it was not yet planning to block Wikipedia, but has handed the online encyclopaedia a series of fines.

Wikimedia has previously criticised the penalties as "part of an ongoing effort by the Russian government to limit the spread of reliable, well-sourced information in the country".

"We are against such efforts as pressure tactics, and see them as an attempt to use legal liabilities to try to curb free knowledge," the foundation has said.

Russia fined Meta's messenger service WhatsApp for the first time last week for not deleting banned content.

Rakuten Group's messaging app Viber also faces a first-time fine of up to 4 million roubles over content, TASS reported on Tuesday.

($1 = 81.4025 roubles)

(Reporting by Reuters; Writing by Alexander Marrow; Editing by Louise Heavens and Sriraj Kalluvila)

Read this article:
Russia fines Wikipedia owner for failing to delete Azov battalion content - Ifax - Yahoo News

In this bonus episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast, I interview Jimmy Wales, the cofounder of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a rare survivor from the Internet Hippie Age, coexisting like a great herbivorous dinosaur with Facebook, Twitter, and the other carnivorous mammals of Web 2.0. Perhaps not coincidentally, Jimmy is the most prominent founder of a massive internet institution not to become a billionaire. We explore why that is, and how he feels about it.

I ask Jimmy whether Wikipedia's model is sustainable, and what new challenges lie ahead for the online encyclopedia. We explore the claim that Wikipedia has a lefty bias, and whether a neutral point of view can be maintained by including only material from trusted sources. I ask Jimmy about a concrete examplewhat looks to me like an idiosyncratically biased entry in Wikipedia for "Communism."

We close with an exploration of the opportunities and risks posed for Wikipedia by ChatGPT and other large language AI models.

Download 460th Episode (mp3)

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Link:
Interviewing Jimmy Wales, Cofounder of Wikipedia - Reason

A name is trending on the web and gaining the attention of the people. Yes, we are talking about Purple Speedy. This name is trending on the web and gaining the attention of the people. Purplespeedys Latest Instagram Photos came on the web and got the attention of the people. People are trying to know about her family, work, career, net worth, School, Hometown. People are hitting the search engine to gain all the details about the news. What happened? Who is Purplespeedy? We will try to cover all the details of the news. Lets continue the article.

According to the report, Purplespeedy aka Purple Speedy whose real name is Peace Pever Anpee. She was welcomed to the world on 10 Dec 1998. She is a Nigerian TikTok star, Digital Content Creator, and brand Influencer as well. She is doing great work in her career. She is 24 years old at this time. She uploads her dance videos on the TikTok platform. She Social Media influencer from Benue State, Nigeria. The Purple Speedy tribe is Tiv. She took birth in a Christian family. Several things remain to tell you about the news, which you will find in the next section of the article.

On the basis of the report, people are curiously searching for her parents so let us tell you her parents are Mr. Terhile Pever Anpee and Mrs. Ishughun Pever. She is the second child of her parents and family. She really loves her family. She is a hardworking woman, who has created a good fan-following among people. She has two sisters and their names are Glory Pever and Faith Pever. Yes, she has a good family and she loved to spend her time with them. Scroll down the page to know more information about the news.

Furthermore, Lets come to her marriage status let us tell you she is not married yet now. She is unmarried but she is in a relationship with her new boyfriend, and his name has been revealed as Elijah Chinye. He is also a Tiktoker and content creator. She is happy in her relationship, according to 2022. If we talk about her net worth so let us tell you her net worth is about $70,000 US Dollars estimated at about 49,000,000 as of 2022, as mentioned on the internet. We have shared all the details about her, which we have fetched from other sources. If we get any further details we will tell you first at the same site. Stay tuned for more updates.

Here is the original post:
Purple Speedy Boyfriend Wikipedia: Who Is Purplespeedy Dating? - PKBnews.in

In the APSA Public Scholarship Program, graduate students in political science produce summaries of new research in the American Political Science Review. This piece, written by Syeda ShahBano Ijaz, covers the new article by Sverrir Steinsson, George Washington University, Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet.

If you have ever used Wikipedia, you might have noticed that even though the online encyclopedia is an open source that anyone can edit (even you!), it is able to maintain neutrality on most issues and is even open to labeling certain issues as false or a pseudoscience. But Wikipedia was not always this reliable; in his recent APSR article, Sverrir Steinsson investigates the evolution of English-language Wikipedia to find out how understanding of neutrality by Wikipedians evolved over time, ending up with increasing reliability of Wikipedia as a source to use. Steinsson traces the change in the content of English Wikipedia over time to suggest that the combination of ambiguous institutional rules and certain editors leaving the site helped Wikipedia transition from being a source that hosted pro-fringe discourse to one that gained credibility as an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. A close examination of the content of selected Wikipedia articles, their publicly available editing history, as well as the comments made by the editors, allows Steinsson to show that a change in the interpretation of Wikipedias Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline affected the nature of content in its articles. As the interpretation favored by anti-fringe editors became popular, pro-fringe editors faced increasing challenges and began to leave Wikipedia. This shift in the balance between pro-fringe and anti-fringe editors, which was a result both of the way editorial disputes were resolved and the exit of pro-fringe editors, made Wikipedia gain credibility as a source that debunked myths and controversies and did not promote pseudoscience.

Most institutional theorists consider institutions to be stable and biased toward the status quo. Institutions persist and tend to behave in the same way over time due to continuity in decision-making and membership stability. However, comparative politics literature on norm contestation suggests that reinterpretation of ambiguous norms can lead to institutions changing from within. The ambiguity in Wikipedias NPOV guideline provided the same opportunity for internal change. However, for such an internal change to occur, it is important that camps with coherent views exist and that contestation between these camps leads to clear victories. This leads to power shifts within the camps and allows manifest institutional change to occur.

Steinsson selects 63 Wikipedia articles that reflect diverse topic areas (such as climate, health, gender, sexuality, and so on) with issues that have been linked to controversies that favor a pro-fringe rhetoric. He analyzes these articles for changes over time to establish the presence of an internal institutional shift. The language of each article is coded on a five-point scale, ranging from fringe normalization to pro-active fringe busting. In addition to this content analysis, Steinsson also closely studies changes in Wikipedias governance structure. He finds that content in English Wikipedia changed over time, from being supportive of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories to active myth-busting. Take the example of the Wikipedia page on homeopathy: from 2001-2006, the lead on the page described homeopathy as a controversial system of alternative medicine. From 2006-2013, the content changed to mentioning that homeopathy has been regarded as pseudoscience and sharing that there is a lack of convincing scientific evidence confirming its efficacy. By 2015, this description had stabilized to homeopathy is a pseudoscience.

()the credibility gain of Wikipedia is an important case study that shows how internal reinterpretation of institutional norms can drive change. Steinsson suggests that the shift in language occurred because of an internal change in how Wikipedia editors interpreted the NPOV guidelines. From an early understanding of the NPOV rule as entailing diverse points of views and staying away from pejorative labels, the later understanding moved towards only documenting facts (as opposed to points of view) and the acceptance to apply pejorative labels as needed. Accompanying this change in understanding was an editorial powershift; Steinsson documents the editorial debates over time to show that anti-fringe editors gained ground while pro-fringe editors began to exit Wikipedia. As a result of this attrition, the institutional brand of English Wikipedia moved from being a suspect source to a credible one.

These changes in Wikipedias content have been gradual as opposed to sudden. Therefore, it is unlikely that they were prompted by external events like the election of Donald Trump in 2016. These shifts are also unlikely to reflect external shifts in the sources Wikipedia drew from since it was the analysis of the sources within Wikipedia articles that changed. Further, many of the sources the articles would cite as reliable were deemed unreliable over time. Instead, the credibility gain of Wikipedia is an important case study that shows how internal reinterpretation of institutional norms can drive change. This casts doubt on the stability of institutions, particularly those that encourage public engagement through social media and the internet.

See the rest here:
How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English ... - Political Science Now