Wikipedia and the two-faced professoriate

From Brede Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Conference paper (help)
Wikipedia and the two-faced professoriate
Authors: Patricia L . Dooley
Citation: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration  : 2010
Editors:
Publisher: ACM
Meeting: 6th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration
Database(s): Citeulike Google Scholar cites
DOI: 10.1145/1832772.1832803.
Link(s):
Search
Web: DuckDuckGo Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Article: Google Scholar PubMed
Restricted: DTU Digital Library
Services
Format: BibTeX

Wikipedia and the two-faced professoriate is a short paper that examine the use of Wikipedia in teaching and research by a survey and a examination ("content analysis") of research papers.

Contents

[edit] Method

  1. Survey among university faculty via SurveyMonkey with a total of 141 responses
  2. 250 research papers (marked as "research reports") were sample from Academic OneFile based on a search on "wikipedia" and narrowed down to 250 papers as those published between 2009 to May 2010. Content analysis where the word "wikipedia" appeared as a "scholarly sources", "report's main topic" or "brief mention".

[edit] Results

  1. Of 105 repondents (university faculty) in the survey
    1. 54,4% ranked Wikipedia from moderately to very credible.
    2. 20% ranked said Wikipedia had no credibility
    3. 45 ranked their Wikipedia use in teaching/research from "moderate" to "frequent"
    4. 20 said they never use Wikipedia in their teaching research.
  2. Out or 250 peer-reviewed research reports:
    1. 249 had included the word in connection with a scholarly sources
    2. 27 had Wikipedia at the report's main topic
    3. 62 made a brief mention of Wikipedia

[edit] Related study

  1. Citations to Wikipedia in chemistry journals: a preliminary study
  2. How today's college students use Wikipedia for course-related research
  3. Wikipedia popularity from a citation analysis point of view also look on ingoing scientific citations to Wikipedia.

[edit] Critique

  1. The number of respondents to the survey is unclear: "141" is written in the method, "105" in the result section.
  2. In one version of the paper Figure 1 is left out and Figure 2 is repeated twice.
Personal tools