4.4 Article

An analysis of discussions in collaborative knowledge engineering through the lens of Wikidata

Journal

JOURNAL OF WEB SEMANTICS
Volume 78, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.websem.2023.100799

Keywords

Collaborative knowledge engineering; Knowledge graph; Discussion analysis; Wikidata

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the use of discussions in Wikidata and how they support knowledge engineering activities. The findings reveal low utilization of discussion capabilities, but when used, discussions primarily focus on knowledge engineering activities. The study aims to aid Wikidata in improving practices and capabilities, encouraging discussion usage, enhancing editor engagement, and developing better knowledge graphs.
We study discussions in Wikidata, the world's largest open-source collaborative knowledge graph (KG). This is important because it helps KG community managers understand how discussions are used and inform the design of collaborative practices and support tools. We follow a mixed-methods approach with descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, and statistical tests to investigate how much discussions in Wikidata are used, what they are used for, and how they support knowledge engineering (KE) activities. The study covers three core sources of discussion, the talk pages that accompany Wikidata items and properties, and a general-purpose communication page. Our findings show low use of discussion capabilities and a power-law distribution similar to other KE projects such as Schema.org. When discussions are used, they are mostly about KE activities, including activities that span across the entire KE lifecycle from conceptualisation and implementation to maintenance and taxonomy building. We hope that the findings will help Wikidata devise improved practices and capabilities to encourage the use of discussions as a tool to collaborate, improve editor engagement, and engineer better KGs.& COPY; 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available