Understanding co-editing mechanism of wiki-based digital humanities projects. Issue 2 (6th December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Deng, Weihua; Lv, Pei; Yi, Ming; Liu, Ming
• Is Part Of: Aslib journal of information management. Volume 72:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 199
• Page End: 218
• Publication Date: 2019-12-06
• Subjects: Crowdsourcing -- Digital humanities -- Consensus -- Co-editing -- Culture heritage -- IBIS; Information science -- Periodicals; Library science -- Periodicals; 020.5
• DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-08-2019-0214
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2050-3806

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to reveal the co-editing mechanism aiming at content creation, and an entry of online encyclopedia is taken as a case, for the purpose of promoting and enhancing the development of wiki-based digital humanities projects (WDHPs), specifically, the projects that focus on gathering contextual information in the culture heritage domain. Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory study was conducted by three steps. A representative entry's editorial records were reorganized to obtain a data set of discussion statements ( n =608), based on which linked-structures were built, and PageRank algorithm was used to analyze the co-editing process. Skewness statistic was applied to measure the consensus of co-editing, and consensus evolution over time was explored. Linear or curve fitting was performed to analyze the correlation between consensus evolution and its influential factors. Findings: In WDHPs, co-editing activity of content creation can be considered as a large-scale group discussion, consensus can evaluate the efficiency of co-editing, which evolves with time and is influenced by the number of statements, breadth and depth of argumentation structure. Taking "Mogao Grottoes" as an example, group discussions around 15 key issues dominate the content creating process, consensus is on a rise with time, finally reaches a relatively high level, and consensus evolution is more influenced by breadth than by depth of argumentation structure, which indicates that co-editing efficiency of "Mogao Grottoes" is fine and more argumentation in a depth manner should be guided. Practical implications: For researchers of WDHPs, it is beneficial to apply online encyclopedia platform combining with consensus analysis to develop WDHPs. For designers of WDHPs, the elements related to argumentation structure can be absorbed into the design to promote co-editing in an effective manner. For DH researchers, the analytic procedure can be beneficial of revealing the interest of contributors in a specific DH field. Originality/value: This research is novel in comprehensively understanding co-editing mechanism of content creation in WDHPs, resulting in a three-step analytic procedure of presenting co-editing process, evaluating and improving co-editing efficiency.