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

Sejal Khatri

dblp:298/4718 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 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.

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

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational social science and digital humanities › social computing
online community
0.612022
The social embeddedness of peer production: A comparative qualitative analysis of three Indian language Wikipedia editions · CHI 2022
Collaborative and social computing
online communities
0.612022
The social embeddedness of peer production: A comparative qualitative analysis of three Indian language Wikipedia editions · CHI 2022
Collaborative and social computing
peer production
0.612022
The social embeddedness of peer production: A comparative qualitative analysis of three Indian language Wikipedia editions · CHI 2022

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

qualitative interviews · 1.7grounded theory · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 The social embeddedness of peer production: A comparative qualitative analysis of three Indian language Wikipedia editions
abstract
Why do some peer production projects do a better job at engaging potential contributors than others? We address this question by comparing three Indian language Wikipedias, namely, Malayalam, Marathi, and Kannada. We found that although the three projects share goals, technological infrastructure, and a similar set of challenges, Malayalam Wikipedia’s community engages language speakers in contributing at a much higher rate than the others. Drawing from a grounded theory analysis of interviews with 18 community participants from the three projects, we found that experience with participatory governance and free/open-source software in the Malayalam community supported high engagement of contributors. Counterintuitively, we found that financial resources intended to increase participation in the Marathi and Kannada communities hindered the growth of these communities. Our findings underscore the importance of social and cultural context in the trajectories of peer production communities.
Sejal Khatri, Aaron D. Shaw, Sayamindu Dasgupta, Benjamin Mako Hill
CHI1