Recommended Practices for NPOV Research on Wikipedia

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21526v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:50:31 GMT
• Title: Recommended Practices for NPOV Research on Wikipedia
• Authors: Isaac Johnson, Yu-Ming Liou, Jacob Rogers, Aaron Shaw, Leila Zia,
• Abstract summary: Neutral Point of View is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.<n>It is relatively understudied considering hundreds of research studies are published annually about the project.
• Score: 0.7768940636456517
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Writing Wikipedia with a neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Although the topic is core to Wikipedia, it is relatively understudied considering hundreds of research studies are published annually about the project. We hypothesize that part of the reason for the low research activity on the topic is that Wikipedia's definition of neutrality and its importance are not well understood within the research community. Neutrality is also an inherently challenging and contested concept. Our aim with this paper is to accelerate high quality research in this space that can help Wikipedia communities continue to improve their work in writing the encyclopedia. We do this by helping researchers to learn what Neutral Point of View means in the context of Wikipedia, identifying some common challenges with studying NPOV and how to navigate them, and offering guidance on how researchers can communicate the results of their work for increased impact on the ground for the benefit of Wikipedia.

Related papers

• Wiki Live Challenge: Challenging Deep Research Agents with Expert-Level Wikipedia Articles [56.724847946825285]
  We introduce Wiki Live Challenge (WLC), a live benchmark that leverages the newest Wikipedia Good Articles (GAs) as expert-level references.<n>We propose Wiki Eval, a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising a fine-grained evaluation method with 39 criteria for writing quality and rigorous metrics for factual verifiability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T03:30:13Z)
• Can we cite Wikipedia? What if Wikipedia was more reliable than its detractors ? [0.0]
  This manuscript examines the systematic rejection Wikipedia in academic settings, not to argue for its legitimacy as a source, but to demonstrate that its reliability is often underestimated traditional academic sources enjoy disproportionate credibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T16:16:24Z)
• How Grounded is Wikipedia? A Study on Structured Evidential Support and Retrieval [37.74733521393654]
  This work analyzes how grounded Wikipedia is and how readily fine-grained grounding evidence can be retrieved.<n>We show that 22% of claims in Wikipedia lead sections are unsupported by the article body.<n>We also show that complex evidence retrieval remains a challenge -- even for recent reasoning rerankers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T21:40:14Z)
• Web2Wiki: Characterizing Wikipedia Linking Across the Web [19.00204665059246]
  We identify over 90 million Wikipedia links spanning 1.68% of Web domains.<n>Wikipedia is most frequently cited by news and science websites for informational purposes.<n>Most links serve as explanatory references rather than as evidence or attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T00:52:24Z)
• What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? [173.8912784451817]
  In modern science, peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T16:06:43Z)
• Mapping Process for the Task: Wikidata Statements to Text as Wikipedia Sentences [68.8204255655161]
  We propose our mapping process for the task of converting Wikidata statements to natural language text (WS2T) for Wikipedia projects at the sentence level. The main step is to organize statements, represented as a group of quadruples and triples, and then to map them to corresponding sentences in English Wikipedia. We evaluate the output corpus in various aspects: sentence structure analysis, noise filtering, and relationships between sentence components based on word embedding models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-23T08:34:33Z)
• Improving Wikipedia Verifiability with AI [116.69749668874493]
  We develop a neural network based system, called Side, to identify Wikipedia citations that are unlikely to support their claims. Our first citation recommendation collects over 60% more preferences than existing Wikipedia citations for the same top 10% most likely unverifiable claims. Our results indicate that an AI-based system could be used, in tandem with humans, to improve the verifiability of Wikipedia.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-08T15:23:29Z)
• Surfer100: Generating Surveys From Web Resources on Wikipedia-style [49.23675182917996]
  We show that recent advances in pretrained language modeling can be combined for a two-stage extractive and abstractive approach for Wikipedia lead paragraph generation. We extend this approach to generate longer Wikipedia-style summaries with sections and examine how such methods struggle in this application through detailed studies with 100 reference human-collected surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-13T02:18:01Z)
• A Map of Science in Wikipedia [0.22843885788439797]
  We map the relationship between Wikipedia articles and scientific journal articles. Most journal articles cited from Wikipedia belong to STEM fields, in particular biology and medicine. Wikipedia's biographies play an important role in connecting STEM fields with the humanities, especially history.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-26T15:44:32Z)
• Multiple Texts as a Limiting Factor in Online Learning: Quantifying (Dis-)similarities of Knowledge Networks across Languages [60.00219873112454]
  We investigate the hypothesis that the extent to which one obtains information on a given topic through Wikipedia depends on the language in which it is consulted. Since Wikipedia is a central part of the web-based information landscape, this indicates a language-related, linguistic bias. The article builds a bridge between reading research, educational science, Wikipedia research and computational linguistics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-05T11:11:55Z)
• A Deeper Investigation of the Importance of Wikipedia Links to the Success of Search Engines [7.433327915285967]
  We report the results of an investigation into the incidence of Wikipedia links in search engine results pages (SERPs) We find that Wikipedia links are extremely common in important search contexts, appearing in 67-84% of all SERPs for common and trending queries, but less often for medical queries. Our findings reinforce the complementary notions that (1) Wikipedia content and research has major impact outside of the Wikipedia domain and (2) powerful technologies like search engines are highly reliant on free content created by volunteers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T19:58:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.