New Wikipedia knowledge emerges around pivotal articles: high-centrality articles within domains and high-betweenness boundary-spanning articles between domains¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In the reported SNA studies, new knowledge in the form of edits or newly created articles centered around articles with high centrality within a domain or high betweenness between domains, showing friction can be productive. → Peter Holtz & Joachim Kimmerle & Ulrike Cress 2018
Evidence¶
Peter Holtz & Joachim Kimmerle & Ulrike Cress 2018¶
Peter Holtz & Joachim Kimmerle & Ulrike Cress. (2018). Using big data techniques for measuring productive friction in mass collaboration online environments. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9285-y
q2 · i? · review · r2
The review reports a social network analysis using snapshots of the link structure among approximately 11,000 Wikipedia articles in psychology and education for the years 2006 to 2012. Betweenness was used as a proxy for productive friction and centrality for within-domain importance. No effect size is printed.
"A first analysis (Halatchliyski and Cress 2014) revealed that new knowledge in the form of edits or newly created articles did indeed center either around articles with high levels of centrality within the respective domains, or around articles with high betweenness scores."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Articles edited by more heterogeneous contributors are more balanced, indicating productive friction that counters polarization — related
- Central Wikipedia articles are primarily edited by domain specialists while boundary-spanning articles are authored by generalists — related
- Three big data methods—text classification, cluster analysis, and social network analysis—can each yield insights into learning in mass collaboration — a broader claim this one bears on
- Wikipedia contributors show confirmation bias by preferentially editing articles consistent with their own views — related
- Boundary spanning perceptions and actions are critical mechanisms for productive divergent collaboration
- Boundary-crossing mechanisms unfold sequentially across levels, and broker centrality creates an involvement paradox — related
- Artifacts and their interconnected structure operationalize collective knowledge processes in large-scale Wikipedia analysis — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
new-knowledge-at-pivotal-central-boundary-articles |
title |
New Wikipedia knowledge emerges around pivotal articles: high-centrality articles within domains and high-betweenness boundary-spanning articles between domains |
description |
New Wikipedia knowledge emerges around pivotal articles: high-centrality articles within domains and high-betweenness boundary-spanning articles between domains |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — peter-holtz-joachim-kimmerle-ulrike-cress-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.