Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/Recent research


 * It then criticizes this lack of scrutiny, reasoning that it is contrary to Wikipedia's goal of being an accessible portal to knowledge - I've always thought of it as the other way around. By using non-OA sources such as print books, we're making available knowledge that we personally have available to us, but isn't available to most.  FUTON bias strikes again. I don't think we should favor one over the other, but I've seen stuff arguing we should prioritize open access several times, and that's never really made sense to me. Hog Farm Talk 02:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I ironically agree with you; not all encyclopedic information is available on OA, and sometimes you gotta look through the wall to get the bigger picture. I do, however, think that if an OA source is a perfect substitute of a paywalled source, it should be used more. Though overall, like when I review FACs or GANs, I'm generally okay with paywalled sources, since what matters (I suppose) is verifiability and reliability.  Gerald WL  07:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With FAC, I've become pretty well convinced over 15 successful FACs and scores of reviews that most articles cannot be brought to FA standard without print books. It's a pain that that's the case (until last year I lived in a pretty rural area whose libraries were very nonfiction poor), but with the exception of internet-age sportspeople, recent albums/songs, and many videogames, it's just unavoidable. Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I expanded To Fly!, a 1976 film (now awaiting my mentor to review it before a FAC), and this rings true. Luckily for me, I have The Wikipedia Library, as well as an online friend with the resources and kindness to help me find books and all that jazz. Although I still try include OA sources wherever possible; better than nothing IMO. Of course, it all comes down to personal preference.  Gerald WL  16:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it really depends on what field you're looking in. I mainly work with the American Civil War, and asides from some old archived articles of the Missouri Historical Review, there's not much open access quality out there on that subject, while other fields have better collections of OA materials.  I have to lean pretty heavy on print books and JSTOR for what I write. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, I lean Newspapers.com/ARCHIVE, JSTOR, ProQuest, and the TWL search engine. Google Books previews help a lot too. Often the TWL engine would lead me to Gale as well.  Gerald WL  03:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have recently encountered for the first time a problem with adding citations linked to Open Access sources. The problem is that English Wikipedia has an automatic filtering program that discourages editors from adding links to open access material published by what the program describes as predatory open access publishers. The program relies upon a very long list of such (alleged) publishers, and makes no provision for an editor like me to question the inclusion of any of the publishers in the list. I therefore have little difficulty in assuming that many of the entries in that list are not "predatory" at all. But why should I risk having what I consider to be reliable material later deleted from Wikipedia when I can just choose instead to publish it without the links? Bahnfrend (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , if the only source you have is OA and considered predatory, look into the sources. Are the sources something that is of common characteristic within predatory sources? Are they peer reviewed, referenced, accurate, etc? If they look like a legit source, then yes it's OK to use it. I use Academia.edu a lot even though they're considered predatory, because the specific works I cite is high quality; not all POA references are POA-like. If the works are predatory-ish, look into other sources, paywalled ones if you have to. The study I reviewed here even disclaims only using OA sources where possible.  Gerald WL  12:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been citing books, not journals, published by IGI Global, which is allegedly a predatory open access journal publisher (my emphasis). The relevant book chapters are about East Timor, and were written by academics based at what appear to be reputable public universities in Portugal, Brazil (including Brazil's most prestigious university, according to its Wikipedia article), and at an accredited private institute of technology in East Timor (the last of these authors is also a former Minister in the government of East Timor). The editors of the books are academics based at apparently reputable public universities in Portugal and the UK. Unfortunately there is not a massive amount of reliable source material on East Timor, which is an impoverished country with a population of only about 1.3 million. My internet researches cast considerable doubt on whether IGI Global is really a predatory publisher of any kind of literature, whether in journals or in books. But the automated filtering program has no mechanism by which I can challenge any of the publishers on its list of (alleged) predatory publishers. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , if you think it is reliable and you are able to assure its reliability should the sources be questioned, then yes, do use it. IGIG's reliability according to my research seems like a good source, it has been approved by ResearchGate, and implements a "double-blind peer review process".  Gerald WL  12:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will bear your comments in mind next time I encounter the automatic filtering program. However, it would still be nice if there were some mechanism for me (or you) to challenge the inclusion of IGI Global (or any other publisher) in the list. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the idea that we should totally rely on OA sources is misguided. Quality and accuracy matter. Besides, I always feel its of better use to the internet when I add a piece of info from a book that I know has never been put anywhere on the internet before. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a great point, . The internet can be a very small loop of regurgitated knowledge. Adding to the information ecosystem rather than just recycling it is a genuine contribution. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also second Indy. And yeah, I sometimes find book sources interesting too, and a good editor should try diversify their scope of sources to get the bigger picture. Unfortunately, we live in a world where OA is not a universal thing, so yeah.  Gerald WL  17:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "An intriguing finding is that some very simple factors like how often an editor’s edits are reverted or how often an editor is assigned administrative tasks could be monitored by the moderators to determine whether an editor is about to leave the platform." Eh? An editor is assigned administrative tasks? Perhaps the researchers have not looked into how such assignments are made. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed the paper and also find this an odd choice of words because on page 8 they acknowledge that admins "act voluntarily". The paper used XTools admin score as a predictor. It looks like perhaps they are postulating that asking people to do stuff specifically to increase their admin score is healthy wrt editor retention. Is it true though that people who e.g. participate in AfD or make AIV reports are more likely to stay? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I skimmed the paper too, and was not encouraged to study it more deeply. Unimpressed by their apparent incomprehension of how Wikipedia works, so I am not taking any of their conclusions seriously. GIGO... Also concerning, is that this may technically qualify as a reliable source. It seems to be quite a common problem for researchers on Wikipedia dynamics to have a poor and superficial understanding of how things work here, possibly bolstered by them relying on previous work by others who had a poor and superficial understanding, rinse and repeat. And who are these moderators to whom they refer? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 03:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)