Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jaehyeon Myung

dblp:294/1164 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0003-2294-9762ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational social science and digital humanities › social computing
online collaboration
0.712023
Longitudinal Assessment of Reference Quality on Wikipedia · WWW 2023
Information retrieval › web search › web information retrieval
web content quality
0.712023
Longitudinal Assessment of Reference Quality on Wikipedia · WWW 2023
Collaborative and social computing
peer production
0.212023
Longitudinal Assessment of Reference Quality on Wikipedia · WWW 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

statistical analysis · 2.0quasi-experiment · 2.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Longitudinal Assessment of Reference Quality on Wikipedia
abstract
Wikipedia plays a crucial role in the integrity of the Web. This work analyzes the reliability of this global encyclopedia through the lens of its references. We operationalize the notion of reference quality by defining reference need (RN), i.e., the percentage of sentences missing a citation, and reference risk (RR), i.e., the proportion of non-authoritative references. We release Citation Detective, a tool for automatically calculating the RN score, and discover that the RN score has dropped by 20 percent point in the last decade, with more than half of verifiable statements now accompanying references. The RR score has remained below 1% over the years as a result of the efforts of the community to eliminate unreliable references. We propose pairing novice and experienced editors on the same Wikipedia article as a strategy to enhance reference quality. Our quasi-experiment indicates that such a co-editing experience can result in a lasting advantage in identifying unreliable sources in future edits. As Wikipedia is frequently used as the ground truth for numerous Web applications, our findings and suggestions on its reliability can have a far-reaching impact. We discuss the possibility of other Web services adopting Wiki-style user collaboration to eliminate unreliable content.
Aitolkyn Baigutanova, Jaehyeon Myung, Diego Sáez-Trumper, Ai-Jou Chou, Miriam Redi, Changwook Jung, Meeyoung Cha
WWW2