Wikipedia

Disputes on Wikipedia

This article is about an editing activity in Wikipedia. For help with an ongoing dispute, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Disputes on Wikipedia arise from Wikipedians disagreeing over article content or internal Wikipedia affairs, which can be discussed on talk pages, as well as from user misconduct. Disputes may result in repeated competing changes to an article, known as "edit wars", and may escalate into dispute resolution efforts and enforcement. Wikipedia editors may dispute numerous articles within a contentious topic that reflect debates and conflicts in society, based on ethnic, political, religious, and scientific differences.

Edit wars graphic by a Czech artist

Dispute resolution efforts have shifted over the years. For content disputes in English Wikipedia, as of 2024, editors most often resort to Requests for Comment, along with specialized discussion structures, such as Articles for Deletion. For alleged user misconduct, some Wikipedias rely on Arbitration Committees as the final word.

Disputes, editor behavior, and collaboration on Wikipedia have long been the subject of academic research. A 2023 review identified 279 articles about contributor goals, interactions, and collaboration processes, which included but was not limited to the handling of disputes. It found that Wikipedia editing peaked in 2007 and research attention peaked in 2012. The review identified 34 studies of "the causes and impact of conflict, the mechanisms for resolving conflict, and the measurement and prediction of conflict or controversial articles." The review found 29 studies of editor coordination, especially on Talk pages, as well as research on algorithmic governance that uses bots to enforce Wikipedia policies.[1]

Identification of disputes

edit

As an open collaboration writing project, from the outset Wikipedia expected disagreements among contributors. The point at which disagreements turn into disputes, and conflicts, is not uniformly defined by Wikipedia communities and the scholars who study them.

 
Visualization of disputed edits, using the Contropedia platform

Conflicts over content within articles often arise among editors, which may result in edit wars.[2]: 62  An edit war is a persistent exchange of edits representing conflicting views on a contested article,[2]: 62 [3][4] or as defined by the website's policy: "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's edits."[5] Edit wars are prohibited on Wikipedia[6]: 146  and editors are encouraged to seek consensus through discussion, however administrative intervention may be applied if discussion is unfruitful in resolving the conflict.[7] Generally, edit wars are provoked by the presence of highly controversial content,[3] such as abortion or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but can also occur due to other disputed matters, such as the nationality of artist Francis Bacon.[4] According to a 2020 study, the longest edit war sequence, with 105 reverts by 20 users, was a 2008 tug-of-war over the biography of Turkey's first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.[8]

Researchers also designed an analytical platform, titled Contropedia, to observe and measure protracted editing controversies, such as global warming.[9]

Edit wars may be defined and detected in terms of reverts and mutual re-reverts. In 2004, the community instituted the three revert rule, which was examined in subsequent scholarship.[8] The rule reportedly cut reverts in half.[1] To identify editing disputes, scholars also tried using the number of article revisions, deletion rates between editors, or a tag placed on controversial articles.[10] For example, up to mid-2020, there were in-depth Talk page arguments over 7,425 instances of a dispute tag.[11] In 2012, Yasseri et al. identified disputes through a pattern recognition algorithm and tested it against human evaluations of article. By avoiding language-based criteria, they stated that their method "makes possible both inter-cultural comparisons and cross-language checks and validation."[10] Accordingly, in a 2014 chapter, Yasseri led a different team to identify the most controversial articles in 10 Wikipedias, including Arabic, Hebrew, and Hungarian.[12]

Later research has used other methods, even absent reverts and deletion patterns. A 2021 study claimed 80% accuracy in identifying "conflict-prone discussions" by their structural features, such as back and forth commenting by two editors (ABA pattern), before any contributions by a third person.[13] Other features include phrases and pronoun usage that mark the level of politeness or collaboration.[11] De Kock and Vlachos classified disputes with a natural language processing (NLP) model that improved on feature-based models.[11]

Many disputes center on the deletion of written content, which can be seen as a kind of gatekeeping.[14] In a comparative study of such network gatekeeping on French and Spanish decolonization cases, it was found that more active editors experience fewer deletions and appear to function within rival camps.[14]

Impact of disputes

edit

Disputes are widely seen as a drain on the Wikipedia community, without adding to useful knowledge,[15] and as creating a competitive[16] and conflict-based culture associated with conventional masculine gender roles.[17][18] Research has focused on the impoliteness of disputes, which can harm personal identities, "violate boundaries,"[19] and diminish voluntarism.[20] Entrenched editor conflicts are said to detract from the quality and purported neutrality of Wikipedia articles.[21][22]

Occasionally, a behind-the-scenes dispute will garner negative media attention as a Wikipedia controversy. For example, after the 2019 ban of a user by the Wikimedia Foundation, media stories covered the internal debate and the resignation of 21 administrators from English Wikipedia.[23][24] Nonetheless, adversarial editing has been defended by Wikipedia leadership as important for collaboration[25] and scholars have argued that well-managed friction among editors can benefit the encyclopedia.[1] Controversial topics may also attract editors, as found by a 2017 lab experiment with people exposed to German Wikipedia.[26]

Features of disputes

edit

With civility as a core principle of Wikipedia, user disputes often feature impoliteness. According to a study of disputes on 120 Talk pages, by and large "Wikipedians do not prolong the conflicts." The most common incivility is scorn, ridicule, or condescension, followed by "pointed criticism." Impolite comments got no traction, no response, two-fifths of the time. Regardless of the topic area, overt responses were divided: 37 percent of responses to rude conduct were defensive, such as explaining oneself or asking for information about the critic's concern. However, 53.5 percent of the time, people responded offensively.[19] According to a similar study, personal attacks were reciprocated 26% immediately.[27]

Editors use a range of rebuttal tactics, ranging from insults to derailing to counterargument and refutation. Higher quality rebuttals "correlate to more constructive outcomes."[27] Coordination tactics include asking questions, providing information, supplying context, offering a compromise, conceding or admitting lack of knowledge.[27] Deferential wording reduces conflict, such as the phrase "by the way" or hedging to signal an openness to compromise.[11]

During editing disputes, Wikipedians have been found to adopt five conversational roles: architect (of the discussion structure), content expert, moderator, policy wonk, and wordsmith. The edit-focused roles, of expert and wordsmith, tended to be more successful than the conceptual, organizational roles, such as policy wonk.[28] Indeed, when editors bring up Wikipedia policies during a general content dispute, "wiki-lawyering," they tend to escalate the editorial conflict.[11] Still, researchers found that citing Wikipedia policy, such as Notability, does help settle disputes over the deletion of articles.[29]

Editing disputes may go through stages or a life cycle, as Moats showed for the use of sources in the early days of writing about the Fukushima nuclear accident.[30]

Deletion disputes

edit
See also: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia
 
Graph showing reduction in AfDs following restrictions on article creation in 2017

Disagreements over the deletion of articles, and other types of encyclopedic content (e.g., categories and lists), are managed through discussion structures. Notably, Wikipedia (English) has had more than 400,000 Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions since 2004, though the rate of AfD submissions has declined after Wikipedia article creation was restricted in 2017.[31][29]

As of 2018, roughly 64 percent of debates ended in deletion and 24 percent in keeping the article, a ratio that is much lower than the early years of Wikipedia. Nearly all discussions are "closed" by a Wikipedian administrator. In 2019, researchers Mayfield and Black created an NLP model to forecast AfD outcomes.[29] Consistent with previous research, they found that the first "vote" (i.e., comment) can generate a "herd effect" and predict outcomes 20 percent or more over the baseline.[29]

Deletion disputes vary among the language Wikipedias. In English Wikipedia, about 20 percent of AfD comments justify their stance with a policy, compared to less than 3 percent in German and Turkish Wikipedia.[32] Long-time Wikipedians play an outsized role in deletion disputes. Although over 160,000 users had spoken up in AfD discussions, over half the debate comments were made by only 1,218 users. This dominance of veteran editors has increased over time.[29]

Contentious topics

edit
See also: Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)

In English and several other Wikipedias, an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) handles a variety of intractable disputes, including conflicts among users who edit multiple articles within a topic. The Committee itself defines such a situation as a "contentious topic" and its sanctions may apply expansively to all articles with the topic. Disputes within contentious topics is a distinct area of research, some based on ArbCom cases and others on quantifiable variables.[21]

Some topics appear to be unavoidably polarizing, such as abortion and climate change, although the level of editor conflict may not match the degree of public debate. In addition, a topic may be contentious in one language Wikipedia and not another.[1] A 2014 study identified Israel, Adolf Hitler, The Holocaust, and God as the most hotly debated articles across 10 languages.[33][12]

Editors have been found to line up in rival camps over contentious articles and topics.[14][21][34] It is unclear how much such editors coordinate outside of the Wikipedia platform, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Apparent editor coordination can be detected through discourse analysis, such as the 2020 study of 1,206 contentious articles that found “contentious Wikipedia articles seem to clearly partition others into friends (those who have the same opinion on a given topic) and enemies.”[34] At the same time, Wikipedians can enhance their reputations with successful editing, which can influence other editors into like-minded approaches to a contentious topic. The most reputable editors tend to write lasting content and they are less involved in disputes.[34]

In an analysis of 5,414 editor profiles, two types of rival camps were discerned: camps that tended to lose their edit wars and those camps that dominated and kept winning. How did the winning camps succeed? They were more likely to ban opposing editors, revert edits, remove competing wikilinks, cite Wikipedia policies, show disrespect, be active in ArbCom proceedings, and especially exert control over cited references. Researchers expressed surprise that Wikipedia policies, designed to ensure balanced viewpoints, were instead leveraged to favor one point-of-view in contentious articles.[21]

Looking at two contentious topics in French Wikipedia, Shroud of Turin and Sigmund Freud, researchers noticed a shift in focus from the editors' conflicting opinions to their disagreements over encyclopedic sources (e.g., are they scientific) and fellow editors (e.g., did they read the sources). Editors argued in adversarial, not collaborative, ways because of commitments that went beyond Wikipedia. With Freud, the split among editors could be explained in terms of their competing epistemologies. However, the Shroud of Turin article was vulnerable to the meta-fallacy of bothsideism, according to the case study authors, because the "tenacity" of religious Wikipedians "might simply aim to enable other believers to continue to do so, by illustrating possible lines of argumentative defense, that indeed seem unending."[35]

In a case study of two post-colonial topics, Algeria vs. France, and Gran Colombia vs. Spain, scholars found that the most active, presumably reputable, editors suffered the fewest deletions of their writing. Moreover, evidence suggested that fewer deletions were made by those who make use of Talk pages, as recommended by Wikipedia policy. The two ingroups with the most Wikipedians — France and Gran Colombia — were more likely to delete contributions by their presumed opposition — from Algeria and Spain, respectively.[14]

Dispute resolution

edit
 
Mediation Committee logo

Soon after its founding, Wikipedia provided avenues to resolve content and conduct disputes. Just as editing disputes are difficult to define precisely, scholars have disagreed about identifying when disputes are resolved. Yasseri et al. categorized articles into three levels of disputation: Consensus, "Sequence of temporary consensuses," and "Never-ending wars."[10]

For content disagreements, Wikipedia has experimented with a variety of mechanisms. Experienced editors have been found to reduce reverts by citing Wikipedia policies, especially "Neutral point of view" (NPOV), "Consensus," and "No original research." Editing disagreements may be resolved by argumentation, compromise, and explaining previous discussions.[1] As of 2024, editors may pursue dispute resolution by requesting a third party opinion, an informal arrangement intended for two editors in disagreement.

If their dispute remains unresolved, another recourse is the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN).[36] The DRN approach does not offer formal closure or a binding compromise, but many cases are rejected for not pursuing other avenues, so it has become less useful.[37] Of 2,520 DRN cases through mid-2020, there were 237 successful resolutions, 149 failures, and 2,134 (85%) closed without an result.[11]

Moreover, editors may submit content disagreements into the Requests for Comment (RfC) system. These requests, circulated to uninvolved editors by a bot, benefit from the RfC's distinctive structure and the imposition of a 30-day deadline.[37] During a seven year period, (English) Wikipedia had over 7,300 requests for comment discussions. RfC discussions are often closed with a Wikipedia-style "consensus" on the content dispute. However, a significant number "go stale" because they are ignored by veteran editors or, conversely, the RfCs are overwhelmed with comments and too complex or controversial to be closed.[36]

In the past, editors in unresolved content disputes could file for formal mediation by a Mediation Committee, which was discontinued due to inactivity in 2018. Dispute resolution was also provided by informal groups such as the "Mediation Cabal." A 2010 study, cited by Ren et al., found that "mediators can alter the text discussion between conflicting editors (e.g., by striking through some statements), clarify ambiguity, differentiate between personal and substantive arguments, and show the editors how their exchanges could be made more constructive. They can also help manage temporal discontinuities (i.e., when one party is unavailable, the other party may make misattributions), and reduce power differences among editors."[1]

For user conduct issues, in 2003, Jimmy Wales created the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), an overarching authority for binding resolution of conduct disputes. ArbCom cases are structured in a formal, though it tends to be flexible and informal as it works toward decisions. More than 500 complaints were submitted to ArbCom between 2004 through 2020. ArbCom examines evidence of misconduct but its decisions have been criticized for favoring the more socially effective parties.[38]

History of disputes on Wikipedia

edit
See also: History of Wikipedia

One of the first large-scale disputes about Wikipedia was an internal argument over advertising, starting with Larry Sanger and dissent by Spanish editors, which led to a 2002 fork of the Spanish Wikipedia.[39] Edit warring gave rise to the rule against three repeated reverts by the same editor.[1][10][37] In 2005-2006, Wikipedians debated whether to display controversial images from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.[39] On internal matters, early disputes included the 2006 userbox controversy, which was resolved partly by placing templates in personal user pages[40] and partly by administration actions by Jimmy Wales.[37]

Meanwhile, in its first decade, Wikipedia set up dispute resolution mechanisms, including the Arbitration Committee, and refined policies to govern and reduce disputes. In its second decade, the Wikimedia Foundation funded and tracked research on disputes. Some Wikipedia dispute resolution efforts were disbanded.[37] A Universal Code of Conduct for all Wikipedia organizations is designed to restrain the most egregious actions, some of which may arise from editing disputes.[41]

See also

edit

Further reading

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ a b c d e f g Ren, Yuqing; Zhang, Haifeng; Kraut, Robert E. (2024-02-29). "How Did They Build the Free Encyclopedia? A Literature Review of Collaboration and Coordination among Wikipedia Editors". ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 31 (1): 1–48. doi:10.1145/3617369. ISSN 1073-0516.
  2. ^ a b Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014-05-14). Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-9120-5.
  3. ^ a b Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). How Wikipedia Works: And how You Can be a Part of it. No Starch Press. p. 384. ISBN 978-1-59327-176-3.
  4. ^ a b O'Sullivan, Dan (2016-02-11). Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?. Routledge. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-134-76624-6.
  5. ^ Rutten, Ellen; Fedor, Julie; Zvereva, Vera, eds. (2013-04-12). Memory, Conflict and New Media: Web Wars in Post-Socialist States (0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203083635-11. ISBN 978-0-203-08363-5.
  6. ^ Thomas, Paul A. (2022-09-15). Inside Wikipedia: How It Works and How You Can Be an Editor. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-6322-1.
  7. ^ Levene, Mark (2011-01-14). An Introduction to Search Engines and Web Navigation. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-06034-6.
  8. ^ a b Chhabra, Anamika; Kaur, Rishemjit; Iyengar, S. R.S. (2020-08-25). "Dynamics of Edit War Sequences in Wikipedia". Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Open Collaboration. ACM. pp. 1–10. doi:10.1145/3412569.3412585. ISBN 978-1-4503-8779-8.
  9. ^ Borra, Erik; Weltevrede, Esther; Ciuccarelli, Paolo; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas; Laniado, David; Magni, Giovanni; Mauri, Michele; Rogers, Richard; Venturini, Tommaso (2015-04-18). "Societal Controversies in Wikipedia Articles". Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM: 193–196. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702436. ISBN 978-1-4503-3145-6.
  10. ^ a b c d Yasseri, Taha; Sumi, Robert; Rung, András; Kornai, András; Kertész, János (2012-06-20). Szolnoki, Attila (ed.). "Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia". PLOS ONE. 7 (6): e38869. arXiv:1202.3643. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...738869Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038869. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3380063. PMID 22745683.
  11. ^ a b c d e f de Kock, Christine; Vlachos, Andreas (April 19–23, 2021). "I Beg to Differ: A study of constructive disagreement in online conversations". Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics: 2017–2027. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2101.10917 – via arXiv.
  12. ^ a b Yasseri, Taha, Anselm Spoerri, Mark Graham, and János Kertész. "The most controversial topics in Wikipedia." Fichman, Pnina; Hara, Noriko, eds. Global Wikipedia: International and cross-cultural issues in online collaboration 25. Scarecrow Press (2014): 25-48.
  13. ^ Ziembowicz, Karolina; Roszczyńska-Kurasińska, Magdalena; Rychwalska, Agnieszka; Nowak, Andrzej (2022-10-03). "Predicting conflict-prone disputes using the structure of turn-taking: the case of Wikipedia". Information, Communication & Society. 25 (13): 1987–2005. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2021.1924224. ISSN 1369-118X.
  14. ^ a b c d Bürger, Moritz; Schlögl, Stephan; Schmid-Petri, Hannah (January 2023). "Conflict dynamics in collaborative knowledge production. A study of network gatekeeping on Wikipedia". Social Networks. 72: 13–21. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2022.08.002.
  15. ^ Kalyanasundaram, Arun; Wei, Wei; Carley, Kathleen M.; Herbsleb, James D. (December 2015). "An agent-based model of edit wars in Wikipedia: How and when is consensus reached". 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). Huntington Beach, CA: IEEE. pp. 276–287. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.715.2758. doi:10.1109/WSC.2015.7408171. ISBN 978-1-4673-9743-8. S2CID 9353425.
  16. ^ Suh, Bongwon; Convertino, Gregorio; Chi, Ed H.; Pirolli, Peter (2009). "The singularity is not near". Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration. Orlando, FL: ACM Press. pp. 1–10. doi:10.1145/1641309.1641322. ISBN 978-1-60558-730-1.
  17. ^ Torres, Nicole (June 2, 2016). "Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia?". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Archived from the original on June 17, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  18. ^ Bear, Julia B.; Collier, Benjamin (March 2016). "Where are the Women in Wikipedia? Understanding the Different Psychological Experiences of Men and Women in Wikipedia". Sex Roles. 74 (5–6): 254–265. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y. S2CID 146452625.
  19. ^ a b Khazraie, Marzieh; Talebzadeh, Hossein (February 7, 2020). ""Wikipedia does NOT tolerate your babbling!": Impoliteness-induced conflict (resolution) in a polylogal collaborative online community of practice". Journal of Pragmatics. 163: 46–65. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.009.
  20. ^ Smirnov, Ivan; Oprea, Camelia; Strohmaier, Markus (December 1, 2023). Ognyanova, Katherine (ed.). "Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia". PNAS Nexus. 2 (12): pgad385. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad385. ISSN 2752-6542. PMC 10697426. PMID 38059265.
  21. ^ a b c d Morris-O'Connor, Danielle A.; Strotmann, Andreas; Zhao, Dangzhi (April 4, 2023). "The colonization of Wikipedia: evidence from characteristic editing behaviors of warring camps". Journal of Documentation. 79 (3): 784–810. doi:10.1108/JD-04-2022-0090. ISSN 0022-0418.
  22. ^ Ruprechter, Thorsten; Santos, Tiago; Helic, Denis (September 9, 2020). "Relating Wikipedia article quality to edit behavior and link structure". Applied Network Science. 5 (1). doi:10.1007/s41109-020-00305-y. ISSN 2364-8228.
  23. ^ Harrison, Stephen (July 2, 2019). "Wikipedia Is in the Midst of a Constitutional Crisis". Slate Magazine. Retrieved July 2, 2019.
  24. ^ Bernstein, Joseph (June 27, 2019). "Wikipedia Has Been A Safe Haven From The Online Culture Wars. That Time May Be Over". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved July 1, 2019. The once-derided open-source encyclopedia is the closest thing the internet has to an oasis of truth. Now a single-user ban has exposed the deep rifts between Wikipedia's libertarian origins and its egalitarian aspirations, and threatened that stability.
  25. ^ "Wiki wars: Do Wikipedia's internal tiffs deter newcomers?". BBC News. 2014-08-05. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  26. ^ Yenikent, Seren; Holtz, Peter; Kimmerle, Joachim (2017-11-07). "The Impact of Topic Characteristics and Threat on Willingness to Engage with Wikipedia Articles: Insights from Laboratory Experiments". Frontiers in Psychology. 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01960. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 5681955. PMID 29163323.
  27. ^ a b c de Kock, Christine; Stafford, Tom; Vlachos, Andreas (2022). "How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia". Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. arXiv:2212.08353.
  28. ^ Maki, Keith, Michael Yoder, Yohan Jo, and Carolyn Rosé. "Roles and success in wikipedia talk pages: Identifying latent patterns of behavior." In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 1026-1035. 2017.
  29. ^ a b c d e Mayfield, Elijah, and Alan W. Black. "Analyzing wikipedia deletion debates with a group decision-making forecast model." Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, no. CSCW (2019): 1-26.
  30. ^ Moats, David (December 6, 2018). "Following the Fukushima Disaster on (and against) Wikipedia: A Methodological Note about STS Research and Online Platforms". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 44 (6): 938–964. doi:10.1177/0162243918815234. ISSN 0162-2439.
  31. ^ Rauwerda, Annie (2021-12-31). "To delete or not to delete? The fate of the most contentious Wikipedia articles". Input. Retrieved 2024-11-02.
  32. ^ Kaffee, Lucie-Aimée; Arora, Arnav; Augenstein, Isabelle (2023). "Why Should This Article Be Deleted? Transparent Stance Detection in Multilingual Wikipedia Editor Discussions". ArXiv. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2310.05779.
  33. ^ "Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC. 18 July 2013. Archived from the original on 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.
  34. ^ a b c Lerner, Jürgen; Lomi, Alessandro (January 2020). "The free encyclopedia that anyone can dispute: An analysis of the micro-structural dynamics of positive and negative relations in the production of contentious Wikipedia articles". Social Networks. 60: 11–25. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2018.12.003.
  35. ^ Baker, Michael J.; Détienne, Françoise (2024-05-17). "Arguing across spaces in an online epistemic community: Case studies in controversial Wikipedia articles". Journal of Argumentation in Context. 13 (1): 1–48. doi:10.1075/jaic.00023.bak. ISSN 2211-4742.
  36. ^ a b Im, Jane, Amy X. Zhang, Christopher J. Schilling, and David Karger. "Deliberation and resolution on wikipedia: A case study of requests for comments." Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, no. CSCW (2018): 1-24.
  37. ^ a b c d e McGrady, Ryan Douglas (2020). Consensus-based encyclopedic virtue: Wikipedia and the production of authority in encyclopedias (PhD. dissertation). North Carolina State University.
  38. ^ Grisel, Florian (May 2024). "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia". Law & Social Inquiry. 49 (2): 1060–1081. doi:10.1017/lsi.2023.15. ISSN 0897-6546.
  39. ^ a b Tkacz, Nathaniel (2015). Wikipedia and the politics of openness. Chicago, Ill. London: University of Chicago press. ISBN 978-0-226-19227-7.
  40. ^ Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). How Wikipedia works: and how you can be a part of it. San Francisco: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-59327-176-3. OCLC 185698411.
  41. ^ Harrison, Stephen (2021-03-02). "The Tensions Behind Wikipedia's New Code of Conduct". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2024-10-01.

⋅

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputes_on_Wikipedia&oldid=1255076438"