Paper Info
Title
Identifying controversial articles in Wikipedia: a comparative study.
Abstract
Wikipedia articles are the result of the collaborative editing of a diverse group of anonymous volunteer editors, who are passionate and knowledgeable about specific topics. One can argue that this plurality of perspectives leads to broader coverage of the topic, thus benefitting the reader. On the other hand, differences among editors on polarizing topics can lead to controversial or questionable content, where facts and arguments are presented and discussed to support a particular point of view. Controversial articles are manually tagged by Wikipedia editors, and span many interesting and popular topics, such as religion, history, and politics, to name a few. Recent works have been proposed on automatically identifying controversy within unmarked articles. However, to date, no systematic comparison of these efforts has been made. This is in part because the various methods are evaluated using different criteria and on different sets of articles by different authors, making it hard for anyone to verify the efficacy and compare all alternatives. We provide a first attempt at bridging this gap. We compare five different methods for modelling and identifying controversy, and discuss some of the unique difficulties and opportunities inherent to the way Wikipedia is produced.
Year
DOI
Venue
2012
10.1145/2462932.2462942
WikiSym
Keywords
Field
DocType
wikipedia article,different criterion,anonymous volunteer editor,different set,comparative study,different method,broader coverage,controversial article,collaborative editing,different author,wikipedia editor,monotonicity,wikipedia
World Wide Web,Computer science,Collaborative editing,Politics
Conference
Citations 
PageRank 
References 
27
1.18
19
Authors
2
Name
Order
Citations
PageRank
Hoda Sepehri Rad1815.18
Denilson Barbosa261043.52