The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

@article{Samoilenko2013TheDM,
  title={The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics},
  author={Anna Samoilenko and Taha Yasseri},
  journal={EPJ Data Science},
  year={2013},
  volume={3},
  pages={1-11}
}
Activity of modern scholarship creates online footprints galore. Along with traditional metrics of research quality, such as citation counts, online images of researchers and institutions increasingly matter in evaluating academic impact, decisions about grant allocation, and promotion. We examined 400 biographical Wikipedia articles on academics from four scientific fields to test if being featured in the world’s largest online encyclopedia is correlated with higher academic notability… 
A comparison of title words for journal articles and Wikipedia pages: Coverage and stylistic differences?
TLDR
The results show that English Wikipedia has lower coverage of issues of interest to non-English nations and there are gaps probably caused by a lack of willing subject specialist editors in some areas.
Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science
TLDR
Findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.
A Study of Citations to Wikipedia in Scholarly Publications
TLDR
Results indicate that the use of Wikipedia citations in peer-reviewed journals has been increasing since 2002 and the disciplines, research fields, and types of journals that are accepting Wikipedia as an authoritative reference source are described, thereby increasing its credibility.
Social impact assessment of scientist from mainstream news and weblogs
TLDR
This work expands a conventional citation graph to a heterogeneous graph of publications, scientists, venues, organizations based on more reliable social media sources such as mainstream news and weblogs and shows moderate correlations and positive associations between the computed graph-based metrics with academic impact and reasonably predict the academic impact of researchers.
The Transmission of Scientific Knowledge to Wikipedia
TLDR
It is found that, controlling for im- pact factor and open access policy, Wikipedia over-represents journals from the Social Sciences, and under-rep Representation of Journals from the Physical Sciences and Health Sciences and an open-access policy is not associated with increased Wikipedia presence.
Understanding the Scientific Enterprise: Citation Analysis, Data and Modeling
TLDR
The present chapter aims at providing a brief overview of the progress recently made in the analysis of bibliographic databases by focusing on studies devoted to the statistical description of distributions of citations received by individual publications.
Global citation inequality is on the rise
TLDR
It is found that the top 1% most-cited scientists have increased their cumulative citation shares from 14 to 21% between 2000 and 2015 and that the Gini coefficient for citation imbalance has risen from 0.65 to 0.70.
Interactions of Cultures and Top People of Wikipedia from Ranking of 24 Language Editions
TLDR
Considering historical figures who appear in multiple editions as interactions between cultures, a network of cultures is constructed and the most influential cultures are identified according to this network.
Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale
TLDR
An analysis of the Wikipedia edit histories for seven scientific articles shows that topics the authors consider politically but not scientifically “controversial" experience more frequent edits with more words changed per day than pages they consider “noncontroversial” (such as the standard model in physics or heliocentrism).
Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia
Gender is one of the most pervasive and insidious forms of inequality. For example, English-language Wikipedia contains more than 1.5 million biographies about notable writers, inventors, and
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 62 REFERENCES
Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web
TLDR
Web presence widespread and diverse and social reference manager bookmarks are compared to Scopus and Web of Science citations; it is found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and that MendEley bookmark counts are significantly correlated toScopus citation counts.
A comparative study of academic and Wikipedia ranking
TLDR
The results show that academic and Wikipedia impact are positively correlated and validate the hypothesis that Wikipedia can help assess the impact of scholarly publications and underpin relevance indicators for scholarly retrieval or recommendation systems.
Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact
TLDR
This study explores the properties of these social media-based metrics or "altmetrics", sampling 24,331 articles published by the Public Library of Science and finds that that different indicators vary greatly in activity.
An Analysis of Topical Coverage of Wikipedia
Many have questioned the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia. Here a different issue, but one closely related: how broad is the coverage of Wikipedia? Differences in the interests and attention of
Universality of scholarly impact metrics
Cultural bias in Wikipedia content on famous persons
TLDR
The extent to which content and perspectives vary across cultures is examined by comparing articles about famous persons in the Polish and English editions of Wikipedia, revealing systematic differences related to the different cultures, histories, and values of Poland and the United States.
Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar
TLDR
Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals.
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services
TLDR
Comparisons between citations and metric values for articles published at different times, even within the same year, can remove or reverse this association and so publishers and scientometricians should consider the effect of time when using altmetrics to rank articles.
Analysis of bibliometric indicators for individual scholars in a large data set
TLDR
This work analyzes the scientific profile of more than 30,000 researchers, and finds that the h-index of a scientist is strongly correlated with the number of citations that she/he has received so that theNumber of citations can be effectively be used as a proxy of theh-index.
Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web
TLDR
This paper develops the most comprehensive list of Web 2.0 services to date, assessing the potential value and availability of data from each and suggesting the next steps toward building and validating metrics drawn from the social Web.
...
...