A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

Reviewed by Clayoquot

How do readers use health information on Wikipedia? A recent paper^[1] explores this question using semi-structured interviews with 21 adults from seven countries. All participants had used Wikipedia for health information at least once in the previous year.

The research was qualitative in intent and all participants happened to have at least some post-secondary education, so the results are not necessarily representative of Wikipedia readers as a whole. Nevertheless, it gives a fascinating breadth of results. The whole paper is well worth reading – it's brief, digestible, and probably quite gratifying for Wikipedia volunteers. Some highlights:

• The most common reason for using Wikipedia was simply to "learn more" about a topic. One participant used Wikipedia to understand the relevant anatomy when preparing to have surgery. The participant said, "What all is like wrapped around that gland? That's the kind of information I was looking for and the doctors weren’t really telling me that."
• Several participants reported using Wikipedia for self-advocacy. Before or after visiting a health professional, they read Wikipedia so they can better explain their symptoms or understand what kinds of questions to ask.
• Three quarters of participants expressed "conditional trust" in Wikipedia content, meaning they scroll down to the list of references and decide whether the cited sources are good. Previous research has found that readers click links in references only 0.29% of the time.^{[supp 1]} This paper doesn't contradict the earlier finding. However, it provides evidence that even when readers don't read a cited source, the fact that it was cited might be meaningful to them.

Reviewed by ...

Reviewed by ....

• See the page of the monthly Wikimedia Research Showcase for videos and slides of past presentations.
• ...

Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions, whether reviewing or summarizing newly published research, are always welcome.

Compiled by Tilman Bayer

From the abstract:^[2]

"A cross-publisher study (Taylor & Francis and University of Michigan Press) convened by [British technology company] Digital Science was established in late 2022 to explore [scholarly] author sentiment towards Wikipedia as a trusted source of information. A short survey was designed to poll published authors about views and uses of Wikipedia and explore how the increased addition of research citations in Wikipedia might help combat misinformation in the context of increasing public engagement with and access to validated research sources. With 21,854 surveys sent, targeting 40,402 papers mentioned in Wikipedia, a total of 750 complete surveys from 60 countries were included in this analysis. In general, responses revealed a positive sentiment towards research citation in Wikipedia and the researcher engagement practices. However, our sub analysis revealed statistically significant differences when compari[ng] articles vs books and across disciplines, but not open vs closed access."

From the "Discussion" section:

"[...] researchers’ views about the accuracy of the citations to their work, whether they would recommend the Wikipedia article about their work and if the article represented the original research topic well, were all positively indicated."

From this post on the blog of the University of Geneva's Confucius Institute:^[3]

"For English Wikipedia, we accessed the “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” page and extracted the list of reliable and controversial sources. Similarly, for Chinese Wikipedia, we accessed the equivalent page containing source reliability information list. [...] in our quantitative analysis, differences in the diversity and number of sources suggest that English Wikipedia may have access to a wider range of sources, whereas Chinese Wikipedia seems to be more selective or restricted in its choice of sources. Due to the existence of [the] “无共识” (no consensus) label, the rating of reliable sources in Chinese Wikipedia is more ambiguous than in the English version."

From the abstract:^[4]

"This study examines Wikipedia’s role in promoting and preserving Setswana and Punjabi. The research is framed by the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory (EVT), which suggests that language survival lies in reclamation, revitalization, and reinvigoration. A quanti-qualitative approach is used to investigate the issue, integrating quantitative metrics from Wikipedia’s statistical pages with qualitative content analysis of the articles. Data were collected from May 2022 to May 2024, focusing on article counts, edits, active editors, new pages, top edited pages, and views. [...] The findings show that Punjabi Wikipedia has a much larger content volume and user base, but comparatively lower recent activity and collaborative depth compared to Setswana Wikipedia. (Setswana) Tswana Wikipedia, while smaller in content volume, demonstrates a more engaged and active editing community, reflected by a higher depth score and a larger number of active users."

From the abstract:^[5]

"This study investigates the dynamics of public risk awareness in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack on January 7, 2015, through a dual-focus analysis of Wikipedia traffic and Google Trends data. Analyzing the temporal patterns of Wikipedia page views in both English and French, sheds light on how significant media events, anniversaries, and related incidents influence public engagement with terrorism-related content over time. [...] Francophone regions, particularly France and its former colonies, exhibit a more sustained and consistent interest in the Charlie Hebdo event compared to Anglophone regions. The heightened engagement in French-speaking areas suggests that cultural and historical ties influence public risk perception and awareness."

From the abstract:^[6]

"[...] we present a comprehensive, multilingual dataset capturing all Wikipedia mentions and links shared in posts and comments on Reddit 2020-2023, excluding those from private and NSFW subreddits. Each linked Wikipedia article is enriched with revision history, page view data, article ID, redirects, and Wikidata identifiers. Through a research agreement with Reddit, our dataset ensures user privacy while providing a query and ID mechanism that integrates with the Reddit and Wikipedia APIs. This enables extended analyses for researchers studying how information flows across platforms. For example, Reddit discussions use Wikipedia for deliberation and fact-checking which subsequently influences Wikipedia content, by driving traffic to articles or inspiring edits."

See also: author's thread, presentation at the Wikimedia Research Showcase

Supplementary references and notes: