Working with Web archives raises a number of issues caused by their temporal characteristics. Depending on the age of the content, additional knowledge might be needed to find and understand older texts. Especially facts about entities are subject to change. Most severe in terms of information retrieval are name changes. In order to find entities that have changed their name over time, search engines need to be aware of this evolution. We tackle this problem by analyzing Wikipedia in terms of entity evolutions mentioned in articles regardless the structural elements. We gathered statistics and automatically extracted minimum excerpts covering name changes by incorporating lists dedicated to that subject. In future work, these excerpts are going to be used to discover patterns and detect changes in other sources. In this work we investigate whether or not Wikipedia is a suitable source for extracting the required knowledge.
A prominent research topic in the context of Wikipedia is prediction of quality flaws. It denotes the task of automatically detecting flaws according to Wikipedia's guidelines, something not to neglect when working with Wikipedia. have done an impressive work in this field and give a nice overview of the first challenge dedicated to this topic @cite_5 . Another related topic is the research on Wikipedia's revision history and talk pages. This could also serve as an additional resource for name evolutions in the future. are working on automatically annotating discussions on talk pages and eventually link these to the corresponding content on Wikipedia articles. Additionally, they provide a toolkit for accessing Wikipedia's history @cite_0 .
@cite_0 @cite_5
2129553551 1970396504 2252123752 2120920763
The Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia: anyone can contribute to its articles simply by clicking on an "edit" button. The open nature of the Wikipedia has been key to its success, but has also created a challenge: how can readers develop an informed opinion on its reliability? We propose a system that computes quantitative values of trust for the text in Wikipedia articles; these trust values provide an indication of text reliability. The system uses as input the revision history of each article, as well as information about the reputation of the contributing authors, as provided by a reputation system. The trust of a word in an article is computed on the basis of the reputation of the original author of the word, as well as the reputation of all authors who edited text near the word. The algorithm computes word trust values that vary smoothly across the text; the trust values can be visualized using varying text-background colors. The algorithm ensures that all changes to an article's text are reflected in the trust values, preventing surreptitious content changes. We have implemented the proposed system, and we have used it to compute and display the trust of the text of thousands of articles of the English Wikipedia. To validate our trust-computation algorithms, we show that text labeled as low-trust has a significantly higher probability of being edited in the future than text labeled as high-trust. Wikipedia is the largest monolithic repository of human knowledge. In addition to its sheer size, it represents a new encyclopedic paradigm by interconnecting articles through hyperlinks. However, since these links are created by human authors, links one would expect to see are often missing. The goal of this work is to detect such gaps automatically. In this paper, we propose a novel method for augmenting the structure of hyperlinked document collections such as Wikipedia. It does not require the extraction of any manually defined features from the article to be augmented. Instead, it is based on principal component analysis, a well-founded mathematical generalization technique, and predicts new links purely based on the statistical structure of the graph formed by the existing links. Our method does not rely on the textual content of articles; we are exploiting only hyperlinks. A user evaluation of our technique shows that it improves the quality of top link suggestions over the state of the art and that the best predicted links are significantly more valuable than the 'average' link already present in Wikipedia. Beyond link prediction, our algorithm can potentially be used to point out topics an article misses to cover and to cluster articles semantically. In this paper, we analyze a novel set of features for the task of automatic edit category classification. Edit category classification assigns categories such as spelling error correction, paraphrase or vandalism to edits in a document. Our features are based on differences between two versions of a document including meta data, textual and language properties and markup. In a supervised machine learning experiment, we achieve a micro-averaged F1 score of .62 on a corpus of edits from the English Wikipedia. In this corpus, each edit has been multi-labeled according to a 21-category taxonomy. A model trained on the same data achieves state-of-the-art performance on the related task of fluency edit classification. We apply pattern mining to automatically labeled edits in the revision histories of different Wikipedia articles. Our results suggest that high-quality articles show a higher degree of homogeneity with respect to their collaboration patterns as compared to random articles. This paper aims to review the fiercely discussed question of whether the ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines is justified by the quality of the articles. After an overview of current research on information quality in Wikipedia, a summary of the extended discussion on the quality of encyclopedic entries in general is given. On this basis, a heuristic method for evaluating Wikipedia entries is developed and applied to Wikipedia articles that scored highly in a search engine retrieval effectiveness test and compared with the relevance judgment of jurors. In all search engines tested, Wikipedia results are unanimously judged better by the jurors than other results on the corresponding results position. Relevance judgments often roughly correspond with the results from the heuristic evaluation. Cases in which high relevance judgments are not in accordance with the comparatively low score from the heuristic evaluation are interpreted as an indicator of a high degree of trust in Wikipedia. One of the systemic shortcomings of Wikipedia lies in its necessarily incoherent user model. A further tuning of the suggested criteria catalog, for instance, the different weighing of the supplied criteria, could serve as a starting point for a user model differentiated evaluation of Wikipedia articles. Approved methods of quality evaluation of reference works are applied to Wikipedia articles and integrated with the question of search engine evaluation. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.