Wikipedia:Academic studies of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

Below is an incomplete list of academic conference presentations, peer-reviewed papers and other types of academic writing which focus on Wikipedia as their subject. Works that mention Wikipedia only in passing are unlikely to be listed.

Unpublished works of presumably academic quality are listed in a dedicated section. For non-academic research, as well as tools that may be useful in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia. For a WikiProject focused on doing research on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia.

For academic papers using Wikipedia as a source, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an academic source, and the bibliography links listed at the bottom of this page. For teaching with Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Student assignments. For researching with Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. For non-academic works focused on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media.

Over time[edit]

Growth of academic interest in Wikipedia: number of publications by year, from creation of Wikipedia to end of 2010. Source: based on mid-May 2011 revision of this page.

Peer reviewed[edit]

These tables grew beyond the limits of a reasonable wiki page, so their content has been moved to a separate wiki.

Journal articles[edit]

Now found at: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_journal_articles

Conference presentations and papers[edit]

Now found at: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_conference_papers

Not peer reviewed[edit]

Reviews[edit]

  • Remy, Melanie (2002). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Online Information Review 26(6):434. Emerald
  • Levack, Kinley (2003). If Two Heads Are Better than One, Try 7,000 with Wikipedia. Econtent Magazine 26(4):12–13, April 2003. [1]
  • Crawford, Walt; Wikipedia and Worth. Cites & Insights, Oct 2004[2].
  • Crawford, Walt; Wikipedia and Worth [Revisited]. Cites & Insights, Feb 2005[3].
  • Denning, Peter; Jim Horning; David Parnas; and Lauren Weinstein (2005). Wikipedia risks. Communications of the ACM 48(12):152, December 2005. doi:10.1145/1101779.1101804
  • Giles, Jim (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438, 900-901 (15 Dec 2005) [4]
  • Lipczynska, Sonya (2005). Power to the people: the case for Wikipedia. Reference Reviews 19(2):6–7.Emerald Ingenta (abstract)
  • Lawler, Cormac. A ‘resource review’ of Wikipedia. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research. 1473-3145 (Print) 1746-1405 (Online). Volume 6, Number 3/September 2006
  • Clauson, Kevin A; Hyla H Polen, Maged N Kamel Boulos & Joan H Dzenowagis (2008). Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. Vol. 42, No. 12, pp. 1814-1821
  • Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki (2012), The People’s Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Systematic Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia, SSRN-id2166137, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2021326

Books and book chapters[edit]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia in books

Editorials[edit]

Magazine articles[edit]

Theses[edit]

This table is now found at: http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/List_of_doctoral_theses and similar.

Lectures[edit]

Survey and poll results[edit]

Reminder: this is for academic or semi-academic surveys and polls of Wikipedia aimed at increasing our understanding of Wikipedia. For Wikipedia's own surveys used for determining consensus, policy making and dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Straw polls.
See also: Category:Wikipedia surveys and polls, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice, meta:Category:Surveys, meta:Category:Polls and meta:CentralNotice.

To do: parse and analyze this

Unpublished (non-thesis)[edit]

Data sets[edit]

External bibliographies of Wikipedia research[edit]

External links[edit]