信息强化:一种在线引用行为

Andrea Forte, Nazanin Andalibi, T. Gorichanaz, Meen Chul Kim, Thomas H. Park, Aaron L Halfaker
{"title":"信息强化:一种在线引用行为","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信