Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior

Andrea Forte, Nazanin Andalibi, T. Gorichanaz, Meen Chul Kim, Thomas H. Park, Aaron L Halfaker
{"title":"Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior","authors":"Andrea Forte, Nazanin Andalibi, T. Gorichanaz, Meen Chul Kim, Thomas H. Park, Aaron L Halfaker","doi":"10.1145/3148330.3148347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this multi-method study, we examine citation activity on English-language Wikipedia to understand how information claims are supported in a non-scientific open collaboration context. We draw on three data sources-edit logs, interview data, and document analysis-to present an integrated interpretation of citation activity and found pervasive themes related to controversy and conflict. Based on this analysis, we present and discuss information fortification as a concept that explains online citation activity that arises from both naturally occurring and manufactured forms of controversy. This analysis challenges a workshop position paper from Group 2005 by Forte and Bruckman, which draws on Latour's sociology of science and citation to explain citation in Wikipedia with a focus on credibility seeking. We discuss how information fortification differs from theories of citation that have arisen from bibliometrics scholarship and are based on scientific citation practices.","PeriodicalId":334195,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3148330.3148347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

In this multi-method study, we examine citation activity on English-language Wikipedia to understand how information claims are supported in a non-scientific open collaboration context. We draw on three data sources-edit logs, interview data, and document analysis-to present an integrated interpretation of citation activity and found pervasive themes related to controversy and conflict. Based on this analysis, we present and discuss information fortification as a concept that explains online citation activity that arises from both naturally occurring and manufactured forms of controversy. This analysis challenges a workshop position paper from Group 2005 by Forte and Bruckman, which draws on Latour's sociology of science and citation to explain citation in Wikipedia with a focus on credibility seeking. We discuss how information fortification differs from theories of citation that have arisen from bibliometrics scholarship and are based on scientific citation practices.
信息强化:一种在线引用行为
在这项多方法研究中,我们考察了英语维基百科的引文活动,以了解信息声明如何在非科学开放合作环境中得到支持。我们利用三种数据来源——编辑日志、采访数据和文件分析——对引文活动进行了综合解释,并发现了与争议和冲突相关的普遍主题。基于这一分析,我们提出并讨论了信息强化这一概念,它解释了自然发生和人为制造的争议形式所产生的在线引用活动。这一分析挑战了Forte和Bruckman 2005年小组的一份研讨会立场文件,该文件利用拉图尔的科学社会学和引文来解释维基百科中的引文,重点是可信度寻求。我们讨论了信息强化如何不同于引文理论,这些理论是从文献计量学学术中产生的,并基于科学的引文实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信