User:Tytire/sandbox2

Collective generation of content in Wikipedia
To adequately understand the quality of information contained in Wikipedia, it is imperative to examine user behavior. However, it is important to recognize that online user behavior cannot be equated with interactions in other social contexts due to the unique characteristics of online platforms and digital interactions. Factors such as the rapid nature of online interactions, anonymity, and information overload contribute to a distinct social dynamic. The establishment of social relationships online produces different effects on self-perception, perceptions of others, and anticipated reactions to one's ideas compared to face-to-face interactions. While these factors are generally applicable to other online platforms, each platform has its own specific interaction mechanisms that subtly differentiate the modes of engagement. Therefore, studying and explaining user behavior requires methodologies that account for the unique context of online platforms, distinct from other social contexts.[

Online platforms offer numerous advantages to researchers investigating user behavior. Wikipedia users, in particular, generate a substantial volume of data through their contributions and revisions to articles. This abundance of data enables researchers to test hypotheses on real-world, large-scale cases, as opposed to relying on limited sample sizes often used in research conducted in other contexts. Leveraging socially generated data for predictions proves more cost-effective than traditional opinion polls, circumvents biases associated with self-reporting, allows for faster results and updates, and provides insights into phenomena where established prediction models may not exist, such as stock market movements. "Predictions based on socially generated data are much cheaper than conventional opinion polling, offer the potential to avoid classic biases inherent in asking people to report their opinions and behaviour, can deliver results much quicker and be updated more rapidly, and can offer purchase on phenomena (such as stock market movements) for which there are no well-established forecasting models."According to Mako Hill and Shaw, a notable trend in Wikipedia research is the extensive use of Wikipedia as a dataset for studying various subjects, rather than conducting research solely focused on Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia has become a crucial resource in social and computational research across numerous fields. The research conducted on Wikipedia has significantly impacted areas such as human-computer interaction, knowledge management, information systems, and online communication over the past two decades. The examination of Wikipedia's content quality and integrity, including the presence of biases, is among the research domains exploring these issues. A considerable portion of the research on user behavior employs quantitative methods, primarily focusing on the English version of Wikipedia. Despite the substantial growth in research on and leveraging of Wikipedia, as well as its central role in knowledge dissemination and education, both Wikipedia users and academia still harbor misconceptions and myths about the platform.

Rules of Wikipedia and observed user behaviors
Wikipedia adheres to guidelines aimed at maintaining unbiased and reliable content. These guidelines include the principle of Neutral Point of View (NPOV), which ensures fair representation of all significant perspectives from reliable sources without editorial bias. Another important principle is verifiability, whereby information must be traceable to reliable sources, allowing others to verify its accuracy. Additionally, Wikipedia prohibits the inclusion of original research in its articles.

Wikipedia does not claim to present absolute truths or be completely objective. Instead, its goal is to provide descriptions of various viewpoints on a given topic based on information from authoritative and verifiable sources. By applying these guidelines and following content-writing processes, contributors actively shape the reality as it is understood within the epistemological framework of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia functions as a space that not only defines the boundaries of “what is knowable” (what is knowledge) but also shapes “how we know” through the ways in which it allows the collection and distribution of knowledge. All of this emerges through the complex ways in which Wikipedia functions both as an encyclopedia and as a community."These general considerations are not unique to Wikipedia. Throughout history, encyclopedias have always reflected the prevailing ideas about knowledge, its representation, and dissemination. They have also been influenced by the political and ideological factors of their respective eras.

Studies examining the quality of information provided by Wikipedia generally support its trustworthiness, accuracy, and faithful representation of prevailing knowledge. However, research has also explored the issue of neutrality and the potential presence of biases, such as political, gender, and cultural biases. Additionally, sociologist Brian Martin has noted the potential biases of militant skeptics against scientific theories or alternative knowledge within Wikipedia. It is worth noting that different language versions of Wikipedia may exhibit specific biases as well.

According to Jemielniak, a scholar of online organizations, "articles on Wikipedia at different stages of development can be variously biased by diametrically different views at the same time. There are waves of slight biases on smaller Wikipedias, depending on the composition of editors at any given moment, but the larger a project gets, the less likely it is that biases prevail.Wikipedia articles in different stages of development can be influenced by diametrically different viewpoints simultaneously. In general, any purposeful, long-term universal bias on Wikipedia, detouring from the dominant beliefs of the general academic and para-academic community, does not prevail."

There are various mechanisms through which biases can be introduced and maintained in Wikipedia. Biases can manifest in the inclusion or omission of specific content in an article, stylistic and lexical choices, contributor behavior, source selection, and user control over article evolution and topic coverage. Biases can also arise from the structure of Wikipedia's hypertext links, which significantly influence users' content exploration, potentially leading to information bubbles. The content of Wikipedia can also be influenced by biases prevalent in the available secondary sources on a given topic, as the verifiability principle requires attribution to authoritative secondary sources.

Biases can result from deliberate actions or from how the encyclopedia produces its content. Deliberate actions include disinformation attacks that aim to compromise the integrity of knowledge represented in Wikipedia. Some users may intentionally introduce and perpetuate biases and partiality, systematically biasing the treatment of certain topics. Wikipedia has tools to defend against such actions, including expert users patrolling changes, the application of rules to verify information and reach consensus, and the ability to revise content. However, protecting its integrity is challenging due to its widespread reach, open collaboration nature, and the limited size and diversity of active user communities engaged in content patrolling and verification.

Disputes among users regarding article content, verifiability, and quality are relatively common. The controversies among Wikipedia contributors have been extensively studied to develop methods and applications that detect, estimate, and understand textual and knowledge production and dissemination controversies online. Understanding these disputes, rule enforcement, and influences within Wikipedia is also crucial for highlighting the inherently political dimension present even in projects inspired by an idea of an open society, such as Wikipedia. According to Jemielniak, despite Wikipedia's collaborative principles, its growth is often fueled by conflicts among contributors, as the social system of Wikipedia channels the energy of controversies into article development.

Disputes among Wikipedia users often revolve around the introduction and maintenance of bias. When users dissent and attempt to rectify bias, others may engage in behaviors such as repeatedly undoing edits (edit wars), selectively invoking Wikipedia rules, launching personal attacks, and marginalizing or excluding dissenting users. Prolonged disputes over bias can escalate to the point of filing complaints, mobilizing counter-edits, and publicly denouncing bias. In many cases, the resolution of highly contentious disputes is achieved not through agreement but through one party coercing the other.

The exclusion of new viewpoints can also occur as a result of excluding or discouraging new users. This can be attributed to various factors, including the challenges of learning how to contribute while complying with the numerous rules and the unintentional or, in some cases, intentional effects of overzealous monitoring by more experienced users. When questions are raised regarding community policies, practices, and norms, the user community often responds defensively.

Biases in Wikipedia can also be unconscious and unintentional, stemming from users' deeply ingrained values and cultural perspectives. The question of objectivity and neutrality in knowledge extends beyond Wikipedia and touches upon fundamental epistemological inquiries about the nature of truth and knowledge. A prevalent notion today is that knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is a socially constructed entity, and its validity can only be properly assessed by considering the social interactions that shape it and their robustness.

The data collected by Wikipedia regarding its content creation process enables the recording and study of how knowledge is produced. The transparent nature of the wiki platform, which includes the history of authorship and edits, as well as user comments on discussion pages, facilitates this analysis. While Wikipedia may not encompass universal knowledge due to the criteria of encyclopedicity, verifiability, and reliance on trusted sources, its transparency and ability to be continually modified allow its knowledge to evolve in tandem with society, culture, and technology, as noted by Vetter.

Online collective knowledge production and neutrality
The quality of knowledge encompasses various aspects such as accuracy, completeness, timeliness, reliability, and verifiability. Wikipedia's model of knowledge differs from the traditional model, which relies on the expertise and authority of experts. The collaborative nature of knowledge production in Wikipedia necessitates a different approach to evaluating its quality, taking into consideration the mechanisms employed in its creation.

Wikipedia's pursuit of neutrality, a key aspect of quality, is guided by the hypothesis of the wisdowm of the crowd. This hypothesis suggests that the collective opinion of a diverse and independent group of individuals can be collectively more insightful than that of a single expert, especially in complex decision-making or prediction scenarios. In the context of neutrality, the hypothesis posits that while an individual's perspective may inherently carry biases, a large number of independent contributions within a collaborative work can help mitigate bias and produce a more balanced outcome.

Experimental research conducted in 2018 on online collective knowledge generation yielded mixed results, indicating that it can sometimes achieve similar quality to that of experts, but not always. In the case of contested topics, collective processes have been found to facilitate productivity, innovation, and integration. However, existing experimental studies have not yielded conclusive findings regarding the effects of political diversity on collective knowledge production. These studies may also be influenced by various biases due to factors such as the challenge of reaching consensus among contributors, differing interpretations of neutrality even among contributors with good intentions, and difficulties in mutual understanding in virtual interactions lacking a shared social context. Additionally, while contribution to Wikipedia is open to all, de facto online processes may lead to self-selection of contributors based on individual diligence and persistence or a gradual loss of diversity within the group, resulting in a homogeneous majority that reinforces their own biases. It is observed that a small number of users often contribute the majority of work in many online co-productions.

Wikipedia possesses the potential to harness the concept of wisdowm of the crowd, but this is contingent upon meeting certain conditions such as having a substantial number of diverse and independent contributors. The issue of Wikipedia's neutrality and the factors influencing it has been a subject of scrutiny since its inception. Studies exploring this aspect of Wikipedia seek to ascertain the validity of the underlying hypothesis: to what extent does knowledge generated by crowd-based organizations like Wikipedia exhibit bias or reflect prejudices? Is it more or less biased compared to knowledge produced by experts? What are the determining factors that influence the degree of bias?