skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Working for the Invisible Machines or Pumping Information into an Empty Void? An Exploration of Wikidata Contributors' Motivations
Title: Working for the Invisible Machines or Pumping Information into an Empty Void? An Exploration of Wikidata Contributors' Motivations
Structured data peer production (SDPP) platforms like Wikidata play an important role in knowledge production. Compared to traditional peer production platforms like Wikipedia, Wikidata data is more structured and intended to be used by machines, not (directly) by people; end-user interactions with Wikidata often happen through intermediary "invisible machines." Given this distinction, we wanted to understand Wikidata contributor motivations and how they are affected by usage invisibility caused by the machine intermediaries. Through an inductive thematic analysis of 15 interviews, we find that: (i) Wikidata editors take on two archetypes---Architects who define the ontological infrastructure of Wikidata, and Masons who build the database through data entry and editing; (ii) the structured nature of Wikidata reveals novel editor motivations, such as an innate drive for organizational work; (iii) most Wikidata editors have little understanding of how their contributions are used, which may demotivate some. We synthesize these insights to help guide the future design of SDPP platforms in supporting the engagement of different types of editors.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1816348
PAR ID:
10432399
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Volume:
6
Issue:
CSCW1
ISSN:
2573-0142
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1 to 21
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; (, Research in Engineering Education Symposium & Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference)
    ABSTRACT CONTEXT The peer review process plays a critical role in ensuring the quality of work published within a field and advancing the knowledge within the research community. However, for many members of the community, the process of peer review largely remains a black box to many scholars, especially those with less experience within the community. Therefore, there is a need to illuminate the peer review process for the research community. PURPOSE OR GOAL To more transparently reveal the contents of the black box around the peer review process, we interviewed editors (associate and deputy editors) for the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) to provide editor perspectives on the overall peer review process. The goal of this paper is to clearly articulate the behind-the-scenes processes of peer review as well as the expectations and perceptions of the editors with respect to publishing within JEE. By bringing these processes to light, we hope that more members of the field will be aware of the overall process and the associated expectations for contributing to the field. APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODS To meet the goals of this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with six editors of JEE who worked in the field of engineering education research (EER), as a part of a larger project exploring the boundaries of the field as expressed within the peer reviews process. The interviewer from the research team followed a protocol but also asked additional questions to elicit more details in some cases. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded using an open-coding process. ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES Based on the analysis of the editor interviews, we present three critical aspects of the peer review process: the types of editors, the process that editors typically conduct to identify reviewers, and the types of decisions through the process. Additionally, we highlight considerations and advice from the editors to help members of the EER community develop. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY The current study makes the editors’ perspectives and decision-making processes more explicit to readers. These decision-making processes are full of careful considerations and also challenges. By doing so, we hope to help the members of the EER community gain a better understanding of what is going on backstage of the peer review process. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; (, ACM)
    Existing commercial and in-house software development tools are often inaccessible to blind and low vision software professionals (BLVSPs), hindering their participation and career growth at work. Building on existing research on Do-It-Yourself (DIY) assistive technologies and customized tools made by programmers, we shed light on the currently unexplored intersection of how DIY tools built and used by BLVSPs support accessible software development. Through semi-structured interviews with 30 BLVSPs, we found that such tools serve many different purposes and are driven by motivations such as desiring to maintain a professional image and a sense of dignity at work. These tools had significant impacts on workplace accessibility and revealed a need for a more centralized community for sharing tools, tips, and tricks. Based on our findings, we introduce the “Double Hacker Dilemma” and highlight a need for developing more effective peer and organizational platforms that support DIY tool sharing. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, Science Education)
    While there is evidence to support the existence of identity-based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer-review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer-review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer-review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity-centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well-balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity-centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double-blind approach to peer-review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer-review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple-blind approach to their peer-review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review. 
    more » « less
  4. ; (, Science Education)
    Across a broad range of disciplines, research has found that inequity is systemic in the journal review process. Collectively, however, this study does not specifically examine racial inequity. Moreover, literature on the peer review process in science education, in particular, does not foreground equity as a subject of study. The present study aims to address this void by examining racial equity in the peer review process with a specific focus on journals in science education. Data are collected from lead editors of major science education journals through the form of interviews, focus groups, and critical arts-based methods. The two research questions driving data collection are (a) In what ways does the science education journal peer review process promote racial equity? and (b) How are science education journal editors’ perceptions of racial inequity reflected in the peer review process? McNair and colleagues’ racial equity framework informs the explorations of journal review in science education from the lead editors’ perspectives. From our findings, we offer four suggestions for moving toward greater racial equity in the science education peer review process. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 22))
    Wikidata is a publicly available, crowdsourced knowledge base that contains interlinked concepts structured for use by intelligent systems. While Wikidata has experienced rapid growth, it is far from complete and faces challenges that prevent it from being used to its full potential. In this paper, we propose a novel method for improving Wikidata by engaging undergraduate students to contribute previously missing knowledge via concept mapping assignments. Rather than allow students to edit Wikidata directly, we describe a workflow in which knowledge is constructed by students and then reviewed by an expert. We present a case study in which we deployed a workflow in a large undergraduate course about sustainability, and find that it was able to contribute a substantial number of high quality statements that persisted in and contributed previously missing knowledge to Wikidata. This work provides a preliminary workflow for improving Wikidata based on classroom assignments, as well as recommendations for how future educational projects could continue to improve Wikidata or other public knowledge bases. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email