Submissions/Different cultures of Wikipedias: how major projects differ in perceiving quality

Jump to: navigation, search
Yes check.svg

This is an accepted submission for Wikimania 2015.

Submission no.
Title of the submission
Different cultures of Wikipedias: how major projects differ in perceiving quality
Type of submission (discussion, hot seat, panel, presentation, tutorial, workshop)
Author of the submission
Dariusz Jemielniak
E-mail address
Country of origin
Affiliation, if any (organisation, company etc.)
Kozminski University
Personal homepage or blog
Abstract (at least 300 words to describe your proposal)

In this presentation I would like to present the results of a study conducted with Dr Maciej Wilamowski (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw). We wanted to investigate the cultural differences in article representation in major Wikipedias. Based on an analysis of image-, reference-, internal link-, external link-, word-, and character-count, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on eight largest Wikipedias, we discover high diversity of approaches and information format preferences in building an encyclopedia. We show that while some measures (such as a mere total article count or average article length) may suggest that major Wikipedias are similar, even if at different stages of development, a deeper analysis exposes huge cultural differences not only in how much information is covered, but also what is considered good in an encyclopedic article, how many references and sources are required to legitimize content, as well as to what extent articles should rely on visual rather than textual representation.

In simpler terms: come, if you want to find out which community fetishizes references most (no, it is not the English one!), or if you want to know, which community clearly likes to watch (rather than read) :) In the presentation I want to interpret the results, and enrich them, basing also on my recent book (Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia, 2014 Stanford University Press, Signpost review).

  • WikiCulture & Community

Length of session (if other than 30 minutes, specify how long)
30 minutes
Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?
Slides or further information (optional)
Special requests

Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with a hash and four tildes. (# ~~~~).

  1. Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. CT Cooper · talk 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Tar Lócesilion (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Ocaasi (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Léna (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Masti (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  8. Aegis Maelstrom (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Can't wait. The topic is important yet it is rarely discussed. I co-presented on, among the others, this area in 2010; since then, I was looking for more presentations and I don't remember any. Thus, and knowing previous talks by Dariusz, my full support.
  9. --Claudia.Garad (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  10. Pgallert (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  11. Poco a poco (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  12. Poco a poco (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  13. Add your username here