Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background With the COVID-19 pandemic’s outbreak, millions flocked to Wikipedia for updated information. Amid growing concerns regarding an “infodemic,” ensuring the quality of information is a crucial vector of public health. Investigating whether and how Wikipedia remained up to date and in line with science is key to formulating strategies to counter misinformation. Using citation analyses, we asked which sources informed Wikipedia’s COVID-19–related articles before and during the pandemic’s first wave (January–May 2020). Results We found that coronavirus-related articles referenced trusted media outlets and high-quality academic sources. Regarding academic sources, Wikipedia was found to be highly selective in terms of what science was cited. Moreover, despite a surge in COVID-19 preprints, Wikipedia had a clear preference for open-access studies published in respected journals and made little use of preprints. Building a timeline of English-language COVID-19 articles from 2001–2020 revealed a nuanced trade-off between quality and timeliness. It further showed how pre-existing articles on key topics related to the virus created a framework for integrating new knowledge. Supported by a rigid sourcing policy, this “scientific infrastructure” facilitated contextualization and regulated the influx of new information. Last, we constructed a network of DOI-Wikipedia articles, which showed the landscape of pandemic-related knowledge on Wikipedia and how academic citations create a web of shared knowledge supporting topics like COVID-19 drug development. Conclusions Understanding how scientific research interacts with the digital knowledge-sphere during the pandemic provides insight into how Wikipedia can facilitate access to science. It also reveals how, aided by what we term its “citizen encyclopedists,” it successfully fended off COVID-19 disinformation and how this unique model may be deployed in other contexts.

The INTERREG Italy-Croatia Joint_SECAP Project: A Collaborative Approach for Adaptation Planning

With regard to the scientific debate which highlights the potential of joint climate planning, there are few concrete experiences in Europe where this approach has been applied. This contribution focuses on critical methodological and application aspects of the processes underlying the development of Joint Plans for Sustainable Energy and Climate in the supra-municipal area as emerged from the direct participation of the authors in the Joint_SECAP project funded by the Interreg Italia-Croatia programme. This paper presents a comparative analysis of nine case studies in Italy and Croatia with a focus on fundamental aspects of the planning process: the governance model, shared knowledge framework, risk and vulnerability assessment, and participatory process. The analysis and comparison of the Joint_SECAP experiences confirm that joint climate planning, developed in the framework of the European Covenant of Mayors (CoM) initiative, is effective for creating synergy between local authorities and for defining and implementing strategies and actions for adaptation to the territorial scale. Finally, the research indicates some recommendations to overcome the barriers that impede the spread and effectiveness of this approach to climate planning. In particular, it highlights the need to enhance collaboration between local authorities, regions, and CoM coordinators.

Science is human

Collective construction of scientific knowledge is doubtless a major accomplishment of humankind. Sharing of information is a manner of inviting the interested community to participate at each step of such construction. Thus, publication of scientific articles must be regarded as an essential activity or means, because it communicates the results of the work of one or more researchers, in turn based on previous shared knowledge. In this regard, scientific journals play an important role as one of the means of communication. However, they are not merely passive vehicles, but one of the steps of the construction of knowledge itself. ... Inconsequent, irresponsible and unstructured freedom of expression and rigid censorship refractory to anything new are both noxious to any community. Although reaching a balance between extremes is a universal goal, we discover how much we missed the point only when we act and assess the consequences of our actions. In this regard, science is no different from any other field of human action.

Degrees of authenticity

This paper presents a taxonomy of indexicalities attached to Linguistic Landscapes in the city of Manchester, UK, which utilise Vietnamese writing and imagery. The taxonomy contrasts the employment of Vietnamese as a foreign language by a British restaurant chain, as a heritage language by second-generation Vietnamese businesses, and as a first language by first-generation businesses. Through the incorporation of scale analysis, the paper aims to show that while all three types of landscapes index Vietnamese authenticity on the surface level of indexicality, on a higher level, a distinction can be drawn between place-making, identity work, and purely commercial indexicalities. That distinction is argued not to be identifiable in the visual resources of the landscapes themselves, but rather in the shared knowledge drawn on in their interpretation. The paper hopes to further contribute to the theoretical diversity of Linguistic Landscape by demonstrating the compatibility and benefits of scale analysis.

Quantitative Comparison between Traditional and Intensive Face-to-Face Education through an Organizational Model

Face-to-face education continues to present benefits in terms of student motivation, even though in COVID-19 scenario, online education has been the model of choice. In addition to the traditional face-to-face style, the intensive face-to-face style remains, which allows greater flexibility for the student. The objective of this study was to compare both educational styles and build an organizational model to improve student satisfaction. Two-way general linear model (GLM) with educational styles and satisfaction as fixed factors and discriminant analysis was applied. The selection of the most discriminant variables was made applying the F of Snedecor, Wilks’-Lambda, and the 1-Tolerance. A discriminant model was built. The four variables with the highest discriminant power were problem-solving communication with students’ representatives and shared knowledge and goals with lectures in the intensive style and frequent communication with administrative officers in the traditional style. In addition, it was found that greater face-to-face attendance did not imply greater coordination and that intensive style students show greater satisfaction. The appropriate duration of face-to-face education can contribute to the design of an innovative hybrid system in the future.

Governing Markets as Knowledge Commons

Knowledge commons facilitate voluntary private interactions in markets and societies. These shared pools of knowledge consist of intellectual and legal infrastructures that both enable and constrain private initiatives. This volume brings together theoretical and empirical approaches that develop and apply the Governing Knowledge Commons framework to the evolution of various kinds of shared knowledge structures that underpin exchanges of goods, services, and ideas. Chapters offer vivid and illuminating case studies that illustrate this conceptual framework. How did pooling scientific knowledge enable the Industrial Revolution? How do social networks underpin the credit system enabling the Agra footwear market? How did the market category Scotch whisky emerge and who has access to it? What is the potential of blockchain-ledgers as shared knowledge repositories? This volume demonstrates the importance of shared knowledge in modern society.

New Collaboration through Artefact-Mediated Interaction with a Joint Knowledge Base

Collaboration is changing and increasingly emerging as what we call “New Collaboration”, a knowledge-based and community-oriented way of working together (especially digital, online collaboration). Unfortunately, organisations use only a small percentage of the potential of New Collaboration. One main reason for this is that they do not understand that New Collaboration is based on knowledge sharing and requires the individual knowledge of the collaborators to be integrated into a shared knowledge structure, a so-called Joint Knowledge Base (JKB). This concept of a Joint Knowledge Base as the tacit knowledge structure which is constructed, shared and maintained during collaboration, emerged during the course of our previous work and became more and more prominent as a key to collaboration. When a group interacts, the JKB functions as an interaction bridge, and this is why it is a key to collaboration. In this paper, we will revise and elaborate in more detail our concept of a JKB and explain its role in artefact-mediated interaction. First, we will explain the main characteristics of New Collaboration and summarise them based on a concise definition. Secondly, we will introduce the concept of a Joint Knowledge Base, explore the role of social negotiation in constructing it, define the JKB as a distributed knowledge structure, discuss the problem of obstacles which hinder its development and suggest how to solve it by means of gaining deeper insight into the complexity of the involved processes (communication, interaction). And next we will further develop this solution by introducing the concept of boundary artefacts and describing their implementation as tools for artefact-mediated interaction by means of a systematic approach. Finally, we will explain this systematic approach and show how boundary artefacts and artefact-mediated interaction work in practice during meetings performed on a commercially available collaboration platform where they contribute to the construction of a JKB.

I'm Different Online: An Account of Differences between Face-to-Face and Online Testimony

<p>Why is Testimony important? The field of testimony is a sub-discipline of the study of epistemology, the study of how we come to know things. Existing literature on testimony mainly focuses on face-to-face interactions. However, online communications have become an integral part of our daily discourse. The purpose of this thesis is to develop an account of testimonial injustices in the context of online testimony. First I will examine cases of face-to-face epistemic injustice which result from failures of knowledge transmission in communicative acts. I will then outline cases of online epistemic injustice. This showcases differences between the kinds of epistemic injustices that can arise in online and in face-to-face contexts. My intention is to identify epistemic issues unique to online environments, with the overall objective to hold agents accountable for acts of epistemic harm, such as intentional misinformation or trolling. I will then be in a position to introduce key features of online testimony, and explain the significance of distinguishing online testimony as a space for shared knowledge from face-to-face testimony. Finally, I propose a viable framework for successful online testimony which holds agents accountable for epistemic harms.</p>

I'm Different Online: An Account of Differences between Face-to-Face and Online Testimony

<p>Why is Testimony important? The field of testimony is a sub-discipline of the study of epistemology, the study of how we come to know things. Existing literature on testimony mainly focuses on face-to-face interactions. However, online communications have become an integral part of our daily discourse. The purpose of this thesis is to develop an account of testimonial injustices in the context of online testimony. First I will examine cases of face-to-face epistemic injustice which result from failures of knowledge transmission in communicative acts. I will then outline cases of online epistemic injustice. This showcases differences between the kinds of epistemic injustices that can arise in online and in face-to-face contexts. My intention is to identify epistemic issues unique to online environments, with the overall objective to hold agents accountable for acts of epistemic harm, such as intentional misinformation or trolling. I will then be in a position to introduce key features of online testimony, and explain the significance of distinguishing online testimony as a space for shared knowledge from face-to-face testimony. Finally, I propose a viable framework for successful online testimony which holds agents accountable for epistemic harms.</p>