Research:The role of citations in how readers evaluate Wikipedia articles/Trust taxonomy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This set of categories represents the reasons given for trusting, or distrusting, the content of Wikipedia articles provided by over 400 readers between January 7-9 2019. Two researchers independently analyzed samples of responses, discussed common themes, and iteratively refined the emerging categories and heirarchy based on additional examples.

The reasons listed in the taxonomy below...

  • can be multivalent: one person might call out a specific reason to explain why they trust an article, while someone else called out the same reason to explain their distrust.
  • are not mutually exclusive: many survey responses called out multiple reasons for (dis)trusting the article they were reading.
  • are not equally represented within the source data: some reasons were much more common than others
  • reflect the researchers' own understanding: some reasons are based on researchers' interpretations of ambiguous survey responses

Taxonomy of reasons for (dis)trusting Wikipedia articles[edit]

Prior experience: Assessments based on the reader's personal experience with the content of Wikipedia

  • Direct familiarity: Degree that info the reader was looking for, or other info in the article, matches their prior knowledge of the subject
  • Wikipedia familiarity: Degree that info on Wikipedia in general matches reader's prior knowledge

Citations and external links: Assessments based on the prevalence or characteristics of cited sources or other external links

  • Presence of sources: Whether the article contains (any) sources
  • Number of sources: How many sources the article has
  • Perceived authoritativeness of sources: the reputation or ethos of cited sources
  • Accessibility of sources: The degree to which the information in the article may be independently verified by checking the cited sources

Prose style: Assessments based on the textual characteristics or writing style of the article

  • Authoritative tone: Degree to which the tone of the article is professional or suggests expertise
  • Neutral tone: Degree to which the article contains biased or opinion-based language

Risk of incorrectness: Assessments based on the reader's judgement of the likelihood that this information could be wrong or misleading

  • Topic coverage: Perceived availability of reliable information on the topic in external sources
  • Atomic information: Degree to which the information sought is simple or unambiguous
  • Motivation for bias: Perceived likelihood that an unknown author would want to want to present wrong or misleading information on the topic
  • Potential for bias: Degree to which information on this topic could be presented in a wrong or misleading way

Article structure: Assessments based on the overall size, coverage, or structure of the article

  • Perceived comprehensiveness: Degree to which the article presents all relevant information on the topic
  • Raw size: The length of the article
  • Structural features: Visual or organizational elements of the article content or user interface

Wikipedia process: Assessments based on reader's prior knowledge (or beliefs) about how Wikipedia content is created

  • Open collaboration: Perceptions around the impact of low technical barriers to contribution and voluntary participation
  • Evidence of gatekeeping: Observations of specific indications that the article is actively monitored and moderated by people with decision-making authority
  • Transparency: Degree to which the reader believes they can inspect the article development history

Reputational measures: Assessments based on reputation or perceived popularity of Wikipedia

  • Popularity: Perceptions about how many people consume or contribute to this article
  • PageRank: Observation of the ranking of this article in search engine results pages
  • Hearsay: General perceptions about how much other people trust this article, articles on this topic, or Wikipedia as a whole
  • Specific incident: Indirect knowledge of specific incident(s) that influence credibility judgements

Other measures: Assessments based on no clear or specific criteria

  • Blind faith: Unquestioned belief in the trustworthiness of the content
  • Common knowledge: Perception that the information in this article is widely or universally known and accepted