Research:Mathematical literacy and editing topics on Mathematics on Wikipedias
This research project intends to associate countries' level of mathematical literacy and the quality and quantity of contributions from these countries on entries on Mathematics on Wikipedias. This will provide a nonanecdotal understanding of how structural constraints --such as cross-national differences in education and scientific culture levels-- have an impact on users' editing strategy and eventually the quality of different Wikipedias as reliable resources on science.
The general intuition is that the lower the level of numeracy in a country the lower the quantity and quantity of edits on entries on Mathematics that originate from this country --we want to test this intuition. To our knowledge the sole academic piece that has associated scientific culture and Wikipedia quality has major methodological flaws and does not provide reliable evidences on this association.
A motivation for this study is that Brazil --from where this research is being proposed-- ranks amongst the countries with the lowest level of numeracy in several cross-national studies on numeracy, particularly OECD's PISA, and as community members we have been deeply involved in improving entries on Mathematics on Wikipedia in Portuguese (results of our effort are published on two programs at the Outreach Dashboard), as we believe a higher-quality Wikipedia in terms of scientific content might also have an impact on a country's scientific-culture level. Our research team has funding support from the São Paulo Research Foundation and the University of São Paulo. The research project that FAPESP has accepted to fund is available on the Commons.
Mathematical culture levels
We will focus on the 70 countries that are assessed by OECD's 2015 PISA and use their data as the variable for approaching mathematical culture levels in these countries. There are known methodological caveats with this data, that will be mentioned in our paper, but to our knowledge this is the most reliable cross-national dataset on scientific culture, including numeracy.
The use of the PISA dataset will be facilitated by an OECD member. NeuroMat will host a conference on numeracy in mid-May, with the presence of a keynote speaker from the OECD who has agreed to provide a training on how to operationalize the PISA dataset.
Editing topics on Mathematics
The strategy for getting the data on the quality and quantity of edits on Mathematics that originates from each country that PISA takes into consideration has been planned in a sequence of steps. The first step is to list all entries on Mathematics on all Wikipedias. We have tested three different strategies for generating this dataset and have come up with what we think is the most reliable strategy. This step is mostly done and as soon as our dataset is completely ready, we will make it available to the community. Preliminary results were sent to Dr. Aaron Halfaker (WMF research team), who has provided early suggestions on how to generate this dataset.
The second step is finding out from where edits --and how many and of what size-- are coming. We are still discussing how the data we expect should look like, but we understand aggregated-level data of edits from countries assessed by PISA should be sufficient for what we expect to achieve. We will need total number of edits and bytes added originating from the countries we are interested in on entries on Mathematics that we have listed. This data output should discriminate between "good" edits, and edits that were reverted and their reversions (editing activity that is associated to "bad" edits).
The best way to present this data is not fully decided yet and should be specified as soon as possible.
From a chat with Dr. Halfaker, we understand the WMF only keeps records of edits for short periods of time. This will be noted on our a methodological section, as we will only have data from a small period. We hope to be able to get data prior to holiday period.
- 4/1: start of research project Done
- 4/15-5/15: data collection (first step of entries on Mathematics) Done (on 5/25)
- 5/16: meeting on operationalization of PISA dataset Done
- 5/20: request of data to the WMF research team Done (on 5/30 -- as an email to Ahalfaker / EpochFail)
- 7/15: submission of conference paper to have inputs from academic peers on research (planned)
- 9/20: first draft of research article (planned)
- 10/30: final paper (planned)
Policy, Ethics and Human Subjects Research
There is no ethical concern for this research. Wikimedia data will be of two types: content production (nothing special here) and aggregated-level data of from where edits on topics on Mathematics (number of valid edits and size of valid edits discriminated from reverted edits and their reversions) originate. As data should not be sent at the individual level, no security concern should be expected, thus being in full compliance to the security expectations of the WMF team.
Once your study completes, describe the results an their implications here. Don't forget to make status=complete above when you are done.
(As listed on research project submitted to FAPESP)
ANTIN, Judd; CHESHIRE, Coye. Readers are not free-riders: Reading as a form of participation on Wikipedia. In: ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2010, Savannah. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Nova York: ACM, 2010. P. 127-130. Disponível em: <http://research.microsoft.com/enus/um/redmond/groups/connect/CSCW_10/docs/p127.pdf>. Acesso em: 31 jan. 2017.
ARBIX, Glauco; CONSONI, Flávia. Inovar para transformar a universidade brasileira. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 26, n. 77, p. 205-224, 2011.
AURAY, Nicolas; POUDAT, Céline; PONS, Pascal. Democratizing scientific vulgarization: The balance between cooperation and conflict in French Wikipedia. Observatorio (OBS*), v.1, n.3, p. 185-199, 2007.
BATEMAN, Alex; LOGAN, Darren W. Time to underpin Wikipedia wisdom. Nature, v. 468, n. 7325, p. 765-765, 2010.
BRUNS, Axel. Gatekeeping, Gatewatching, realimentação em tempo real: Novos desafios para o Jornalismo. Brazilian Journalism Research, v.7, n.2, p. 119-140, 2011.
CENTRO DE PESQUISA, INOVAÇÃO E DIFUSÃO EM NEUROMATEMÁTICA. A call to duty: NeuroMat and the Wikipedia Initiative. 26 jul. 2014. Disponível em: <http://neuromat.numec.prp.usp.br/content/callduty-neuromat-wikipedia-initiative>. Acesso em: 1 fev. 2017
D'ANDRÉA, Carlos. Colaboração, edição, transparência: Desafios e possibilidades de uma “wikificação” do jornalismo. Brazilian Journalism Research, v.5, n.1, p. 20-37, 2009.
DRIVER, Rosalind et al. Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, v. 23, n. 7, p. 5-12, 1994.
ENGSTROM, Mary E.; JEWETT, Dusty. Collaborative learning the wiki way. TechTrends, v.49, n.6, p. 12-15, 2005.
FONSECA, Marina Assis; DE OLIVEIRA, Bernardo Jefferson. Variações sobre a “cultura científica” em quatro autores brasileiros. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, v. 22, n. 2, p. 445-459, 2015.
GOMES, Mayra Rodrigues; SOARES, Rosana de Lima. WIKIMEDIA: integração de texto e imagem no ensino de Jornalismo. Brazilian Journalism Research, v.7, n.1, p. 171-199, 2011.
GILES, Jim. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, v. 438, n. 7070, p. 900-901, 2005.
HEILMAN, James M. et al. Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion. Journal of Medical Internet Research, v. 13, n. 1, p. e14, 2011.
JANKOWSKI, Nicholas W. Exploring e‐science: an introduction. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, v. 12, n. 2, p. 549-562, 2007.
JASCHIK, Scott. A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed, v. 26, n. 01, 2007.
KENNEDY, Ryan, et al. Turning Introductory Comparative Politics and Elections Courses into Social Science Research Communities Using Wikipedia: Improving Both Teaching and Research. PS: Political Science & Politics, v. 48, n. 02, p. 378-384, abr. 2015.
KIM, Dan J et al. Global Diffusion of the Internet XV: Web 2.0 Technologies, Principles, and Applications: A Conceptual Framework from Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, v.24, p. 657-672, 2009.
KOUPER, Inna. Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, v. 9, n. 1, p. 1-10, 2010.
LAURENT, Michaël R.; VICKERS, Tim J. Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, v. 16, n. 4, p. 471-479, 2009.
MORAES, Renato et al. A wiki-pedagogia no Jornalismo: o caso do Projeto Wikipédia da Faculdade Cásper Líbero. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Jornalismo, v. 6, n. 18, 2016.
MOREIRA, Walter. Os colégios virtuais e a nova configuração da comunicação científica. Ci. Inf., v.34, n.1, p. 57-63, 2005.
MUHLEN, Marcio; OHNO-MACHADO, Lucila. Reviewing social media use by clinicians. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, v. 19, n. 5, p. 777-781, 2012.
NIELSEN, Finn Arup. Scientific citations in Wikipedia. First Monday, v.12, n.8, 2007.
NOURMOHAMMADI, Hamzehali; KERAMATFAR, Mahdi; KERAMATFAR, Abdalsamad. The relation between Wikipedia's size and scientific publication in a country. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, v. 9, n. 1, p. 83-92, 2015.
OUELLETTE, Jennifer. Scientific data has become so complex, we have to invent new math to deal with it. Wired, 09 out. 2013. Disponível em: <http://www.wired.com/2013/10/topology-data-sets/>. Acesso em: 2 fev. 2017.
PARK, Taemin Kim. The visibility of Wikipedia in scholarly publications. First Monday, v16, n.8, 2011.
PESCHANSKI, João Alexandre. Ernesto Hamburger 2.0: a experiência de difusão científica colaborativa do NeuroMat. Pensar a Educação em Pauta, 8 jul. 2016. Disponível em:<http://www.pensaraeducacaoempauta.com/#!blank-261/t1lqh>. Acesso em: 3 fev. 2017.
_________________________; DIELLO, Mariana; CARRERA, Marília. Wikipédia em sala de aula: uma revisão bibliográfica. Disponível em: <http://neuromat.numec.prp.usp.br/relatorio/2015/artigos/wikipedia_em_sala_de_aula.pdf>. Acesso em: 4 fev. 2017.
PINHEIRO, Lena Vania Ribeiro. Do acesso livre à ciência aberta: conceitos e implicações na comunicação científica. Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação & Inovação em Saúde, v. 8, n. 2, 2014.
PONTE, Diego; SIMON, Judith. Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers' opinions on Web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, v. 37, n. 3, p. 149-156, 2011.
RABIN, Cláudio Goldberg. Como erros, boatos, mentiras e pegadinhas na Wikipédia afetam o mundo real. Motherboard, 7 jul. 2016. Disponível em: <http://motherboard.vice.com/pt_br/read/como-mentiras-na-wikipdia-afetam-o-mundo-real>. Acesso em: 5 fev. 2017.
RIBEIRO, Aline Luli Romero; GOTTSCHALG-DUQUE, Cláudio. Wikipédia e Enciclopédia Britânica: informação confiável?. Revista Brasileira de Biblioteconomia e Documentação. São Paulo, v. 7, n. 2, p. 172-185, 2011.
SHEMA, Hadas; BAR-ILAN, Judit; THELWALL, Mike. Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS one, v. 7, n. 5, p. e35869, 2012.
TEPLITSKIY, Misha; LU, Grace; DUEDE, Eamon. Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science. ArXiv.org, 25 jun. 2015. Disponível em: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.07608v1>. Acesso em: 6 fev. 2017.
TUCKER, Miriam E. Doctors, Not Just Patients, Use Wikipedia, Too: IMS Report. Medscape, 5 fev. 2014. Disponível em: <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/820249>. Acesso em: 7 fev. 2017.
VARGAS, Claudia D.; KON, Fabio. Em defesa do compartilhamento público de dados científicos. Le Monde Diplomatique, São Paulo, 5 maio 2014. Disponível em: <http://diplomatique.org.br/artigo.php?id=1653>. Acesso em: 8 fev. 2017.
VOGT, Carlos. A espiral da cultura científica. Revista Eletrônica ComCiência, n. 45, jul. 2003. Disponível em: <http://www.comciencia.br/reportagens/cultura/>. Acesso em: 9 fev. 2017.
___________. Ciência e bem-estar cultural. ComCiência, n. 119, 2010.
___________. The spiral of scientific culture and cultural well being: Brazil and IberoAmerica. Public Understanding of Science, v.21, n.1, p. 4–16, 2012.