Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

Allowing anyone to edit content is the philosophy of most wikis. Such approach does not ensure that the editor is a specialist in the topic and is well-meaning. Poor quality of the content and vandalism can be a major problem.

We did a literature review on quality of information and criteria and examined a number wiki applications seeking to understand the process of authorship being used in larger wiki sites, such as those run by the Wikimedia Foundation and present a conceptual model to enforce quality in Wiki content. In this model, we suggest that each article should have an evaluation resulting from voting a pool of reviewers and that a historical record of the evaluation should be keep and available to users.

REFERENCES

• 1: Weller, A. 2001. Editorial Peer Review: its Strengths and Weaknesses Medford, NJ
• 2: Stevan Harnad, Implementing peer review on the net: scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals, Scholarly publishing: the electronic frontier, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996
• 3: Farah, M and Vanderpooten, D, 2005 "A Multicriteria paradigm of relevance for web Information Retrieval Problem" 3rd International Conference: science of Electronic, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications(SETIT 2005), March 27.31, Tunisia. IEEE Press
• 4: Gitanjali, B. 2001. Peer review -- process, perspectives and the path ahead. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine. Volume 47(3) pp 210--215
• 5: Sylvia L and Herbel J. Manuscript Peer Review - A Guide for Health Care Professionals. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21, pp. 395--404.
• 6: Lock S and Smith J. What do peer reviewers do? JAMA 1990; 263: 1341--1343.
• 7: Evans A, McNutt R, Fletcher S, Fletcher R. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1993; 8 pp. 422--428.
• 8: Alan Jay Smith, The Task of the Referee, Computer, v.23 n.4, p.65-71, April 1990 [doi>10.1109/2.55470]
• 9: Beck, S. 1997 "Evaluation Criteria. The Good, The Bad & The Ugly: or, Why It's a Good Idea to Evaluate Web Sources". {http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html}
• 10: Kapoun, J. 1998 "Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation: A guide for library instruction." C&RL News, July-August 1998, pp. 522--523
• 11: Alexander, J. and Tate, M. 1998 "The Web as a Research Tool: Evaluation Techniques", Wolfgram Memorial Library, {http://science.edu/-withers/evalout.htm.} on {01-04-2008}
• 12: Nielsen, J. & Morkes, J. 1997 "Concise, SCANNABLE, and Objective: How to Write for the Web", {http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html}, on {06-12-2007}
• 13: Lash, S, 2001 "Technological Forms of Life". Theory, Culture and Society, 18, 1.
• 14: Lillrank, P. 2003. "The quality of Information"; International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20 (6), pp. 691--703.
• 15: Larry P. English, Improving data warehouse and business information quality: methods for reducing costs and increasing profits, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1999
• 16: COBIT, 2000, COBIT Framework 3^rd Edition. Released by COBIT Steering Committee and the IT Governance Institute.
• 17: Molineaux, P. 2002. Exploring CRM. Connecting with Customers. Hodder and Stroughton. London.
• 18: Donald A. Marchand , William J. Kettinger , John D. Rollins, Information Orientation: The Link to Business Performance, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY, 2002
• 19: Murray, P. 2000. "How smarter companies get results from KM". in Marchand D, Davamport, T and Dickenson T (eds) Mastering Information Management. FT Prentice Hall, pp. 187--192
• 20: Joseph M. Reagle, Jr., Do as I do:: authorial leadership in wikipedia, Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on Wikis, p.143-156, October 21-25, 2007, Montreal, Quebec, Canada [doi>10.1145/1296951.1296967]
• 21: Nhampossa, J. 2006. Re-Thinking Technology Transfer as Technology Translation. Ph. D. thesis, University of Oslo.
• 22: Aparicio, M, Lopes, P. and Barrulas, M. J. 2007 "Assessing Websites" Information Technology, Organizations and Teams, ITML Press (press.itml.org)

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.11 Software Architectures

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Web-based interaction

  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Sociology

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
Wikipedia, documentation, quality of information, wiki