Final Report (3 guys & a girl, a.k.a. FourNames)

Exploring Web Based Encyclopedias:  Wikipedia and KNOL

Authors

Nick Aberle, Trevor Aparicio, Bethany Henrikson, Andrew Fischer

Abstract

Our research for this project is addressing various encyclopedias that are available online (namely Wikipedia[1] and KNOL[2]). We are exploring how these environments compare to one another in a meta-design context, specifically focusing on areas related to the coverage and depth of material present on the sites, relevance of material, credibility, and how up to date the material is. [3] Online knowledge bases such as these have a huge impact on society, so we feel it is important to examine them in detail.  To study these aspects of the online encyclopedias we compared them on a shallow level, found out how easy it is to edit or manipulate articles and how quickly they were corrected, created our own Wikipedia page, and studied how the sites keep track of different versions of the articles.

Keywords

Wikipedia, KNOL, encyclopedia, encyclopedias, meta-design, web 2.0, user participation

Problem / Goal

Our goal is to see how meta-design products such as Wikipedia and KNOL can affect society's knowledge base and what possible implications this can have. It has often been claimed that the information present on these sites is unreliable since it is possible for anyone on the Internet to create and edit pages. We plan on arriving at our own conclusions regarding this topic. There is no doubt that these environments are deeply ingrained in society and it is unfair to address them in a negative context without further exploration. We also wish to explore in some depth the spectrum of online encyclopedias by investigating these two sites and comparing them to each other in both their similarities and differences.

Methodologies

Our methodologies for performing the research on this project include:

• Reading and analyzing articles on the encyclopedia sites
• Reading all external links and comparing them to facts in articles to assert article correctness
• Assess ability to access specific information (website usability)
• Assess article usability (accessability)
• Independent research online
• Reading papers brought up during lectures related to the topic
• Performing experiments on Wikipedia by manipulating articles
• Participating in contributing information to Wikipedia

Related Work

The uniqueness of our contribution lies in the direct comparisons of multiple aspects between similar meta-design encyclopedia sites. Another unique aspect is the manipulation of the content of these sites with the end goal of analysis in mind.

Our project relates to many themes discussed in class this semester. These topics include meta-design, cultures of participation, model-authoritative vs. model-democratic, and symmetries of ignorance.  Wikipedia and KNOL are both products that rely on a vast amount of consumer contribution.  These sites are intentionally under-designed to foster user contributions and collaboration.[5][10] This allows the users to govern all content present and customize it to best fit the community. [9] One user takes initiative in creating an article which can be further extended by other users of the site. [6] Also, they cultivate their own cultures of participation in which communities of users interact directly with one another in the style of the web 2.0 ideology.[7][8][10]  An area in which these sites clash is their methodologies of content creation.[7]  Wikipedia follows the democratic model where large groups of users collectively decide what information will be displayed for each article.  KNOL, on the other hand, relies on more of an authoritative model where a single user, or small group of users, generates all of the content for any one article.  Wikipedia also exploits the fact that no one person has absolute knowledge on any one topic.  It utilizes symmetries of ignorance to maximize both the content and quality of its articles using input from many people simultaneously.[4]

Characterization of the Individual Contributions

Sabotage

In examining Wikipedia as a possible source of relevant and factual information we decided that we would need to test how well the content is controlled by editing users and/or bots.  Therefore we decided that some small forms of article sabotage would work well here.  The manipulations of articles were split up into light and medium edits and were done to low, medium, and high traffic articles throughout Wikipedia.  Light edits were considered to be something small within the article such as typos or a wrong date, while medium edits were changing something a little larger in an article that had the possibility of transforming the meaning of the phrase, sentence, paragraph, or section.  We attempted each of these sabotages in various orders on the different articles of varying magnitudes of popularity.  Popularity was determined by taking into account  how often an article is edited, watched, or favorited.  The high traffic articles that were used in this experiment were "French Foreign Legion" and "Ernest Rutherford," the medium traffic articles used were "End-user" and "Celestial Seasonings," and the low traffic articles used were "Tattered Cover" and "The Original Pancake House."

Writing a Wikipedia Article

For this portion we wanted to experience the actual process of how a Wikipedia article is created and how it in turn evolves from its inception. After some deliberation, we determined that creating our own article from scratch would be the best way to accomplish this, rather than tracking an already existing article.

Creating an Account

The first step we took in writing an article was creating a Wikipedia account. While not required to read or edit articles it does offer additional benefits that users without accounts do not enjoy, such as creating new articles. This is a good example of the concept of a low threshold but a high ceiling. Wikipedia does not force its users to make accounts if they do not want them, but allows interested users to delve into the site further and make contributions of their own. Some benefits from creating an account include easier tracking of contributions, credit for content added, and additional permissions. In fact, some articles only allow accounts that are both old enough and have enough logged edits to change them. In addition, in order to participate in the discussion of an article's contents, found in the “Talk” page, an account is required. This page is commonly used to determine what should be put in an article and to settle conflicts [21]. Each user account has its own talk page as well, which is used for messaging other users about their contributions [22].

Choosing a Topic

Choosing a topic to write an article on was definitely an interesting challenge. This mainly had to do with the fact that Wikipedia currently offers over 3,496,000 articles in English, and many more in other languages. This results in many, many topics already having articles describing them. After some brainstorming, we determined that we wanted to write an article that was somehow related to the Foundations in Human Centered Computing course. However, many of the topics that have discussed in class have been very well established and several even have fairly robust and lengthy articles. After discovering this, we broadened our topic ideas to computer science in general. During this search, we found a few articles relating to university computer education. This in turn gave us the idea to write our article about the University of Colorado at Boulder Computer Science Department, a page that had not yet been created.

Writing the Wikipedia Article

Before a new user even begins writing, Wikipedia really wants to make sure they understand their policies and expectations. As verification, it asks several questions about the topic and sources before it allows the page to be created. Some questions verify that the topic is notable or that proper and reliable sources are being used. There is also a link provided to an extensive guide for new users about how to write an article for the first time that details the style and etiquette expected by the site [23].

After moving beyond the new article creation education, the user is presented with the editing page. At first, a blank article page is rather daunting. It appears with a large text box with a few editing options at the top. One important thing to note about the Wikipedia article editor is that it is not a WYSIWG (What You See Is What You Get) editor. This means that changes made to this text box do not reflect how the article will actually look in its viewable form on the site. Edits are made using plain text and a special mark-up language and syntax unique to Wiki sites. This language generates all the formatting, data structures, and organization present in every article throughout Wikipedia. Some buttons are present above the text box that help users auto-insert some of the more commonly used syntax elements, such as lists, images, or links to other articles and external websites.

We began writing the article by creating a data structure that is common in many articles on the site known as an “infobox.” This box appears on the far right side of the page and lists basic facts about the topic. For our infobox, we chose to include some data we felt was important about the department, such as its creation date, location, affiliations, and a link to the department website. We also included a picture of the entrance near the Computer Science Educational Labs. Also included in the data structure is the option to enter the coordinates if you are discussing a location that can be viewed on a map. Clicking on these coordinates brings up a page that allows you to see maps and satellite views of the area.

Next, we began creating the main content of the article. The first step in this was devising the sections that our article would be split into. Almost every Wikipedia article longer than a paragraph is organized into these sections. Sections are created by making a header using the Wikipedia syntax “==Section Name==”. Doing this automatically creates a large, bold title for the section and adds it to a table of contents, which appears right below the article's introduction. The table of contents consists of a list of all sections and subsections with hyperlinks to each.

After creating each section, we were then ready to add our research. Most of our data comes from the Computer Science Department's home page as well as the main CU web page. An important aspect that is stressed by Wikipedia is maintaining an unbiased position while writing articles. While we are naturally inclined to favor our own department, we made an effort to just state facts in our article. If a neutral stance is not maintained within an article's content, other users can come along and flag it as being biased, requesting a change or even the deletion of  the entire article.

At this point, we previewed our article to see how it was coming along before publishing, much like you can in the course Wiki. In this review, we noticed one key aspect that was missing from our page: links to other articles on Wikipedia. Cross-linking articles is an important way Wikipedia contextualizes information for users, making it easy to learn about unknown, but relevant topics in a single click. We chose to cross-link many topics within our own article, such as the University of Colorado itself, Computer Science, names of people mentioned, research topics, and many others. This linking is accomplished by using the Wikipedia syntax “[[Article Name]]”. This automatically creates a blue hyperlink within your article that links to the related topic. If the article does not already exist, the hyperlink created is red and clicking it allows any registered user to create the new article.

This realization led us to another: linking to our article from related topics will give our content more visibility. This was as simple as editing existing pages with links to our own using the same syntax described above. First, we linked to our article from the engineering section of the main University of Colorado at Boulder article. In addition, we tagged our article as describing a computer science department, which automatically added a link to that category page. Category pages are a means of organizing similar articles so they are all accessible from one location [24]. We also tagged it as a University of Colorado article, which puts a link on a page linking to other articles about specific facets of the university [25].

The final step in creating our article was adding a template to the very bottom of the page. A template is similar to an infobox, but is even more customizable. The template on our page has facts about the University of Colorado at Boulder in general, styled with the school's official colors. Templates have standardized information in them that is created by the community, with details that are generally less specific than what is found in infoboxes. These templates are used to unify related articles, much like category pages, although no automatic grouping takes place by adding a template to an article [26].

Our entire Wikipedia article can be viewed on the site at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Colorado_at_Boulder_Computer_Science_Department

Article Histories of Wikipedia vs Article Histories of KNOL

We set out to discover: where to find the history pages, the different representations of the history pages on Wikipedia and KNOL, the reasons articles change over time, who can change the articles, how histories are compared on Wikipedia and KNOL, and similar articles on Wikipedia and KNOL to compare the two's histories.  Some may not even think to look at something such as an article history, thinking, "What's the point? The most recent and relevant information is in the current version, right?"  It's true that most articles are up-to-date and quick glance at the date of the last edit can give you information on just how up-to-date it is.  However, if it's a controversial article where something like bias can get in the way of factual information, the information may not be quite what you're looking for.  A way to check and see if something like a war between view points is going on, is to check the history page.  The history page will also tell you information about who has changed it, how often it's been changed, and even sometimes why it was changed.

Assessing Encyclopedia Based On Website Usability, Article Accessability, and Article Credibility

This part of the report analyzes Wikipedia and KNOL based on Website Usability, Article Accessability, and Article Credibility.  Wikipedia and KNOL cannot be compared to each other because of the nature of each, so each will be analyzed differently.  Both will be analyzed and rated based on their overall website usability, but Wikipedia will be further discussed based on the quality of each of the articles used in our research.  Each of the articles used in our further study will be a part of a larger category: science, mathematics, or humanitarian (being derived from literature, history, religion).  The qualities used to study these articles include article usability and article correctness.  Article usability is defined as the accessibility of the article to a novice, and article correctness was ascertained by comparing the facts in the external links of an article to the information within it.

Findings and Results

Sabotage

 Article sabotage turned out to be a very informative experiment.  Within the "Tattered Cover" article a sentence was added in to the end of the history section.  The sentence was "Books are great! I love reading. Everyone buy a book from Tattered Cover."  It only took one refresh of the newly edited page to see that this change in the article had been found out within seconds of the save.  A bot that goes by the name of ClueBot NG found this sentence and considered it to be an act of vandalism.  The bot then reverted the article to its previous form, without the additional sentence.  There were similar cases for all of the other articles as well.  None of our article edits stayed there for more than a day.  In the "The Original Pancake House" article a date was changed, as if a typo, from 1999 to 1996.  Words were switched in the article "End-User."  An entry was added in a table in the "Celestial Seasonings" article.  A sentence that seemed as if it could have been fact-based was added to "French Foreign Legion" and the date of death was changed from 1937 to 1927 in "Ernest Rutherford."

 Each of the changes were found and removed in a relatively quick manner.  Surprisingly, only two of them were found and mended by bots (both by ClueBot NG).[11]  The others were found by actual human users.  It turns out that there are many people that are considered a sort of editor, or edit-checker.  These people patrol[12] the online encyclopedia and attempt to weed out false data or vandalism from as many articles as possible.  Some go through by themselves and look at recent changes and find information that may be irrelevant or false, while others use the help of bots that they create to help monitor the site.  Bots can be programmed to do many mundane tasks throughout Wikipedia and there are several that are made to seek out acts of vandalism, revert these acts, and then possibly report the vandal.  

 Overall, Wikipedia has many devoted users, whether they are contributors, editors, vandalism-fighters, or bot creators.  This makes the online encyclopedia appear as if it is actually a very factual resource.  All of the effort that is put into it helps to keep the articles honest and true.  However, it is still understandable that people will not accept Wikipedia as a good resource; articles are extremely easy to edit and there is always a slight chance that one may get information right after a vandal changed the article.  False information still is a possibility, but Wikipedia is at least a very good place to begin to find information as it has very factual information almost all of the time.

Writing a Wikipedia Article

We have a few main takeaways that we got out of creating a brand new Wikipedia article from scratch. First, we discovered that Wikipedia is very supportive of new users trying to add their own content. The site realizes that there is a lot of information to take in and does fairly well at orienting beginners and putting them on their way to creating a new article. The process of creating an article was relatively simple as well. There is basically an endless pool of examples to draw from, and Wikipedia walks users through important features using specially designated tutorial pages.

As evidenced by the massive amount of documentation Wikipedia maintains regarding their site policies and expectations, it is a very detail-oriented site. Seemingly minor inconsistencies are constantly addressed as issues to be corrected between articles. While it seems like an annoyance at first, this attention to detail really helps maintain congruity between every article. This makes browsing the site easier, as each user knows what to expect in both quality and formatting as they jump from page to page. As a result, information can be picked out much more easily, as opposed to having to dig through pages of sloppily formatted articles.

Wikipedia's strict rule set also lends itself to establishing a very professional atmosphere on the site. While many people do get enjoyment out of participating in Wikipedia, the site makes it clear right away that it is not meant for messing around and editing articles at random. Creating content is addressed in a very serious manner. When creating a page, Wikipedia strongly emphasizes the gravity of creating new information that will be distributed to millions of users. They do not take this lightly and are quick to enforce any violation of the rules.

Since creating the article, it has been modified by one person unrelated to our group or even the university. Shortly after its creation, it was scanned and changed by someone running automated software that fixes simple formatting errors. This software is called AWB, or AutoWikiBrowser [27]. Changes made by this software included cleaning up capitalization in our section titles and adding links that when clicked allow users to edit individual sections of our page rather than the page in its entirety.

Article Histories of Wikipedia vs Article Histories of KNOL

As mentioned previously, our goal was to find out: where to find the history pages, the different representations of the history pages on Wikipedia and KNOL, the reasons articles change over time, who can change the articles, how histories are compared on Wikipedia and KNOL, and similar articles on Wikipedia and KNOL to compare the two's histories.

Finding the History Pages

On Wikipedia, to find where all the old versions of an article are posted, it's simple.  At the top of every Wikipedia article, there are tabs.  On the top left, there are the tabs of Main Page and Discussion.  On the top right side, the tabs are Read, View Source, and View History.  The tab we want for this is View History.

On KNOL, it's slightly more difficult than Wikipedia.  It actually took a while to find the first time, and even the second time when we came back after doing a lot on Wikipedia.  On the right side there is a column of information.  The very top are buttons where you can edit the current KNOL, or write a new KNOL.  Below these are a picture of the author of the article, their name, sometimes other information if they have given it, and if there are any contributors they are listed here.  Under that box is the box that has the information about who can change the article, any awards the article has won, the version number of the article, the date it was last edited, and then the word "Versions."  Clicking on "Versions" will get you to the list of the old versions of the article.

The Representations of the History Pages

Wikipedia gives more information, or at least a faster way to get to it, than KNOL on its history pages, however, KNOL's history pages are easier to understand because the are clearly labeled.

On a Wikipedia's history page, an entry looks like the figure above.  This is an entry from our very own Wikipedia article's history page [16].  It's an excellent example, because it has all the information it could possibly have about the entry.  Not every entry on the history page gets all the information this does.  This entry, from left to right, gives us the following information:

• a link to the comparison of this entry and the current entry (it is not a link, because it is the current entry)
• a link to the comparison between this entry and the entry directly previous to it
• a button to push to select the entry for comparison with an entry that is not the current one of the one previous to the current entry
• time and date it was modified which are linked to the article the entry created
• the user who modified it which links to the user's profile
• a link to the talk page for that user
• a link to a list of the contributions the user has made
• what kind of edit it was: the m tells us that it was a minor edit, this can also be a section edit, an automatic edit summary, or it can be left out
• the size of the article in bytes
• why or how the page was edited, this information is not always listed
• a link to undo everything that this entry did.

On KNOL there are column titles to help explain what the information means (as pictured above)[18].  The check box is the same thing the round button on Wikipedia is, the ability to compare two articles.  Then, if the entry has been "published", just as the column titles suggest the following information is given (if it is "unpublished" then no information is given other than the version number and that it is "unpublished"):

• the version number of the entry
• the date and time it was modified
• the person who edited the article
• why or how it was edited
• whether or not anyone other than the user can see the edit (published means you can see it, unpublished means no one can see it).

Reasons for the Changing of Articles

There are many reasons a page may get updated.  A big one that jumps out when first figuring out why an article would be changed is someone adding more information to the article.  Either the article just started and the author really only had a short stub about it, such as a definition, or maybe because of recent events in the world that created new information about the topic of the article.  A small, but frequent, reason for an article to be edited is someone changing the formatting, like the bot did to our Wikipedia article.  Another major reason for an article to be changed, is the information is wrong and needs to be corrected or removed.  When we did our sabotage, this happened quite quickly by bots and by people, as previously mentioned.  Other small changes include: changing the organization of the article or correcting typos, grammar errors or spelling errors[13].  On Wikipedia, registered users can mark these as minor edits which are indisputable[14].  I suppose another reason to edit an article, is to sabotage it.  We understand that this is not a good practice and do not agree with people who do it for fun.  There are possibly other smaller reasons that we didn't come across during our search, but probably aren't significant in the list of reasons people change articles.

Who Can Change Articles?

Wikipedia, in a general sense and as most people know, can be edited by everyone.  However, in some cases where things are vandalized often, disputed upon, or changed a lot by unregistered users for example, administrators can make articles protected so that only registered users can edit it, or even so only administrators can edit it[13].

KNOL on the other hand has three different levels of ability to edit an article: Open, Moderated, and Closed Collaboration[15].  Open Collaboration has only one restriction on who can edit articles with its label and that's that the user has to be registered.  Moderated Collaboration is used when the original author doesn't mind if other people contribute to their article, but would like to review it first.  Any registered user can suggest an edit, but the author of the article has to approve it for anyone to see it.  Closed Collaboration is when the author wants to be the only one to edit it.  They can allow others to edit the article by marking them as a co-author.

Comparisons Between Different Versions of an Article

Wikipedia and KNOL both will let you compare two different versions of an article at a time.  Wikipedia, like its history page entries, seems to like giving all possible information to the user.  KNOL, on the other hand, likes to make things easy and intuitive.

Above is an example of part of a comparison of two different versions of an article on Wikipedia[17].  The changes between these two, here, are formatting changes.  The information between the two is completely the same.  The right makes things pretty and fancy for the reader of the article, whereas the older version on the left is just a simple paragraph with minor formatting.  It is not entirely clear everything that is going on unless you have used the formatting that Wikipedia uses.

KNOL is definitely more clean and intuitive, as shown above[18].  The green highlighted things are things the newer version added, the red and crossed out parts are things that got removed from the older version in the newer version. 

Similar Article on Wikipedia and KNOL for Comparison

We found not just a similar article, but the exact same article on Wikipedia and KNOL[17,18,19].  Well, they was when the KNOLs were created anyway.  That's right, plural.  Not only is there one copy of the Wikipedia page on KNOL, there are two!  It is obvious that at the time when the KNOLs on Alan Turing were created, the authors went to the Wikipedia page on Alan Turing, used the wonderful invention of copy and paste and put the exact things from Wikipedia into KNOL.  They are word for word and picture for picture from Wikipedia to KNOL.  We know this, thanks to the ability to go back in time on Wikipedia articles, and from this ability, we also know that the Wikipedia came first with over 2000 edits before the KNOLs were created.  Neither of the KNOLs are word for word anymore.  The Wikipedia page has been edited over 1000 times since the KNOLs were created.  How many times have the KNOLs been updated to fit with the Wikipedia page? Twice on one of them, and not a single time on the other one.  The one that was edited twice since being published, was used as an example for the history page entry seen earlier.  It says version 10, because the first 7 versions of the article were unpublished.  The KNOL that had not been changed since it was published had only one unpublished version.  Since all that is listed is the version number and that it is unpublished, it is hard to say why people use unpublished versions, and why there were 7 on one and only 1 on the other.  Perhaps the author of the seven unpublished versions really wanted to get it just right for the KNOL audience.  Maybe he was figuring out how to write a KNOL for the first time.  We will never know.  Wikipedia doesn't tell us how many times the original author of an article hit their "Show Preview" button before hitting their "Save" button and publishing it for all to see and edit[20].

Assessing Encyclopedia Based On Website Usability, Article Accessability, and Article Credibility

Overall website usability

This section rates the encyclopedia’s “user friendliness” and its usefulness.
Overall website usability – This section rates the encyclopedia’s “user friendliness” and its usefulness.

KNOL – 2 – Right now, KNOL is a great idea, but is not quite usable.  KNOL proposes not only to be a repository of information, but also a forum where new information can be synthesized from the perspectives of others.  It attempts to tap into the symmetry of ignorance.  However, its website usability at the moment is quite poor.  Some things about the website are good, if only underused by the KNOL community: the basic search system, the “… also wrote” section, and the “Reviews” section.  Most of the other aspects of the site’s usability are quite poor:  the advanced search system, number of relevant articles, and the overall usability of the articles on the site.  The basic search is well done.  When something is searched for, a list of articles comes up.  All of them have something to do with the search string, but sometimes in very weak ways.  When searching “alcohol,” the first article was “Drug Abuse/Alcohol Counseling” which is what you would expect.  The second was titled “Alzheimer’s Disease.”  Inside this article was a reference to alcohol, but overall “alcohol” did not pertain to the article.  This problem should go away though as more and more articles are added.  Something that saved the basic search process was the “Categories” panel on the left side of the page.  This panel organized each of the articles brought up by the search into categories, which I assume were defined by the author.  Under the alcohol search, there were categories relating to “health,” “music,” “taxes,” etc.  Choosing the health category gave me two more categories: “Alzheimer’s disease” and “substance abuse.”  This categories ‘file system’ if you will made the searching about the listed articles quite easy.  The “…also wrote” section lets the user easily read other articles written by the author of the article they are currently on.  This helps users further investigate the ideas of an author to help them determine whether the author is reputable.  The “Review” tool lets users review specific articles.  These reviews consist of explanations based around questions like: “Do you trust this person as an expert?,” “Do you believe this content is original?,” “Did you find this KNOL useful?,” etc.  Once again, if KNOL had more traffic, and KNOL users reviewed articles more often, this feature would allow users to quickly decide whether the article the reviews are based on are worth reading.  Now to the poor parts of KNOL.  The advanced search is far more advanced than necessary.  It is so ‘advanced’ that if you used half of the advanced search tools, the search would be so narrowed that a typical user would never find anything they want.  The sheer number of options, boxes and prompts are distracting and initially befuddling.  There are also a limited number of relevant articles.  When looking up “mitosis,” the first article is titled “Birth of Universe by Mitosis.”  Reading the article allows the determination that the article does not relate to the process by which cells reproduce.  The next article is “Longevity,” then “History of Cancer Treatment.”  This list is evidence of a problem with the search system (which was only remedied by its use of categories) but could easily be solved if there were more articles pertaining to the area of mitosis.  This lack of relevancy leads to a poor overall usability of the articles.  Given these faults, KNOL received a rather poor score, but if KNOL grows further and reworks itself, it could mature into a very worthwhile resource.  

Wikipedia – 5 – Several things make the usability of Wikipedia great: the searching system, the disambiguation pages, the way each article is designed, the hyperlinks to other articles embedded in the article text, the cited text and references section, the further reading section, and the sheer number of articles.  The search system usually quite good.  If the article being searched for exists, Wikipedia brings up that page.  If that article topic is commonly confused with other topics (for example, mitosis [35] is commonly confused with meiosis, miosis, and myositis) then a line below the title of the article saying “Not to be confused with…” and some common articles that users could have instead meant gives the user an easy way to jump to the page the user meant.  If there is more than one article relating to the search string, a disambiguation page is brought up listing all articles related to that string (for example, Eagle’s Nest [34] there are multiple entries).  The user can then choose the article he wants to investigate.  The common template that Wikipedia articles use is also well designed.  Each page starts with a brief summary of the article topic giving a definition, brief history, etc.  After this is a table of contents of the article linking to different areas within the article.  This lets the user easily navigate to the portion of the article he needs at that moment.  All throughout the article are hyperlinks to other articles on Wikipedia referred to in the article.  If the user does not know what a chromosome is while reading the article on mitosis, he can use the embedded hyperlink in the article on mitosis to learn what a chromosome is, then return to mitosis when he has a better understanding of its related topics.  Also throughout the text of an article are superscript-hyperlinked numbers tying the statements in the article to outside sources.  This notation allows users to verify the information in the Wikipedia article themselves.  The further reading section gives, as the name implies, other literature related to the topic of the article for the user to learn more about the article subject.  But the most important thing in the usability of Wikipedia is the sheer number of articles.  At the moment, there are 3,497,000+ articles in the English Wikipedia.

Further Discussion

And now a further discussion of Wikipedia based on groupings of articles and the criterion of usability and article correctness.  (Once again, our test consisted of going to every external link and making sure it was relevant and valid.  Every article passes our test.  That said, assume the articles are correct by our standards of article correctness unless otherwise specified; these also include spelling errors)

Science – 4 – Physics, Chemistry, and Biology are three basic and common sciences, so the articles chosen to represent the science category were force[32], combustion[33], and mitosis[35].  Mitosis[35] was the most usable, by which I mean accessible by any person reading it.  The language was easy to understand, and the pictures, both the diagrams and photographs, helped illustrate the phenomena.  Combustion[33] was the next usable.  It’s basic description was easy enough to understand, but the equations to someone with no prior understanding of chemistry would be unable to follow the equations.  Further down the article, under the section titled “Chemical Equation,” the notation becomes even more specialized.  Although a better representation of the chemical reactions of combustion, a novice would not understand the notation.  Force[32] was the least accessible.  The summary of the article is not difficult to understand,  but not easy either.  Although it does not require any knowledge of notation, it does not lend itself to the casual reader.  Aside from the initial summary and the history of the discovery of force, any hope for a novice reader to understand the article is lost.  Again, the ideas are correctly represented, but are inaccessible to the layman.  This section received a 4 because of its inaccessibility.

Mathematics – 4 – Using addition[31] as the example for the category of mathematics is rather fitting; addition is very simple, yet it’s article in Wikipedia becomes verbose making navigating and understanding it fully without knowledge of mathematical notation, graph theory, and even electrical engineering impossible.  Again, it is important that an encyclopedia have entries written in this manner; it is the correct way to represent mathematics and sciences.  However, the people reading these articles must be considered as novices; there is no reason for an expert to visit such a page (if he already knows and understands the intricacies of addition why go to an encyclopedia?).  These articles would be better if they were designed to help novices reach the level of understanding necessary to understand the whole article.  

Humanitarian – 5 – Under this category are judged literature, history, religion; the articles chosen to represent these articles are Romeo and Juliet[28], War of 1812[29], and Christianity[30].  Each of these articles is very accessible.  Starting from the summary, each article gradually progresses the scope of each article.  With each section, more of the article topic is introduced to the reader.  This allows for usability by both novice and non-novice alike.  The novice can start from the beginning and work his way through the material section by section gaining an overall understanding of the subject; the more experienced reader can jump immediately to the parts of the article that interest him most.  From using our experiences with Wikipedia, the idea that anything without an emphasis in mathematics or sciences tends to be more accessible, just by the nature of the content ant the lack of formalized notation.  

Final Thoughts

The aspect of our project we are most proud of is our Wikipedia article. It was an excellent way to experience the human centered computing elements of online encyclopedias first hand. We have all used Wikipedia in our academic careers but have had limited or no experience with interacting with the site on a contribution level. It is a representative final product and we are proud that the article now exists on the World Wide Web and can be extended by whoever wishes to contribute to it in the future.

References

[1] Online meta-design encyclopedia Wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.org

[2] Another online collaborative encyclopedia KNOL: http://knol.google.com/k 

[3] Dick, Holger; Eden, Hal. Lecture 1.5: Wikis as an Example of HCC Environments. August 25, 2010.

[4] Fischer, Gerhard; Eden, Hal; Dick, Holger. Lecture 3: Distributed Cognition. September 1, 2010.

[5] Fischer, Gerhard; Eden, Hal; Dick, Holger. Lecture 9: Meta-Design. September 27, 2010.

[6] Fischer, Gerhard; Eden, Hal; Dick, Holger. Lecture 10: The SER Model. September 29, 2010.

[7] Fischer, Gerhard; Eden, Hal; Dick, Holger. Lecture 11: Cultures of Participation. October 4, 2010.

[8] Fischer, Gerhard; Eden, Hal; Dick, Holger. Lecture 12: Richer Ecology of Participation. October 11, 2010.

[9] Fischer, Gerhard. Meta-Design: Expanding Boundaries and Redistributing Control in Design

[10 ]Fischer, Gerhard. End-User Development and Meta-Design: Foundations for Cultures of Participation. 2007.

[11] Wikipedia's Anti-vandal Bot,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ClueBot_NG&oldid=391868393

[12] Wikipedia's Recent Changes Patrol,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol

[13] Wikipedia's Protection Policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy

[14] Wikipedia's Guide to Editing a Page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page

[15] Collaboration in KNOLs, http://knol.google.com/k/collaboration-in-knols

[16] University of Colorado's Computer Science Department, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Colorado_at_Boulder_Computer_Science_Department 

[17] Wikipedia's Alan Turing Article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

[18] Alan Turing Article 1 on KNOL, http://knol.google.com/k/alan-turing-father-of-modern-computer-science#

[19] Alan Turing Article 2 on KNOL, http://knol.google.com/k/alan-turing#

[20] Wikipedia's Starting an Article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Starting_an_article

[21] Sample Wikipedia talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Dean

[22] Wikipedia user talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aberlen

[23] New Wikipedia article guide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article

[24] Computer science departments category page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_science_departments

[25] University of Colorado category page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Colorado

[26] Wikipedia CU Boulder Template, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:University_of_Colorado_at_Boulder

[27] AutoWikiBrowser, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AWB

[28] Romeo and Juliet. (2010, December 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:25, December 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romeo_and_Juliet&oldid=401534162

[29] War of 1812. (2010, December 8). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:25, December 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_1812&oldid=401343453

[30] Christianity. (2010, December 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:24, December 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&oldid=401542705

[31] Addition. (2010, December 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:56, December 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Addition&oldid=401356804

[32] Force. (2010, December 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:57, December 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Force&oldid=401135625

[33] Combustion. (2010, December 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:57, December 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Combustion&oldid=400768234

[34] Eagle's Nest. (2010, March 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:30, December 8, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle%27s_Nest&oldid=351232677

[35] Mitosis. (2010, November 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:08, December 8, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitosis&oldid=396314666