Wikipedia as a tool for contemporary history of science: A case study on CRISPR

Rapid developments and methodological divides hinder the study of how scientific knowledge accumulates, consolidates and transfers to the public sphere. Our work proposes using Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, as a historiographical source for contemporary science. We chose the high-profile field of gene editing as our test case, performing a historical analysis of the English-language Wikipedia articles on CRISPR. Using a mixed-method approach, we qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed the CRISPR article's text, sections and references, alongside 50 affiliated articles. These, we found, documented the CRISPR field's maturation from a fundamental scientific discovery to a biotechnological revolution with vast social and cultural implications. We developed automated tools to support such research and demonstrated its applicability to two other scientific fields-coronavirus and circadian clocks. Our method utilizes Wikipedia as a digital and free archive, showing it can document the incremental growth of knowledge and the manner scientific research accumulates and translates into public discourse. Using Wikipedia in this manner compliments and overcomes some issues with contemporary histories and can also augment existing bibliometric research.

A diachronic perspective on citation latency in Wikipedia articles on CRISPR/Cas-9: an exploratory case study

This paper analyzes Wikipedia's representation of the Nobel Prize winning CRISPR/Cas9 technology, a method for gene editing. We propose and evaluate different heuristics to match publications from several publication corpora against Wikipedia's central article on CRISPR and against the complete Wikipedia revision history in order to retrieve further Wikipedia articles relevant to the topic and to analyze Wikipedia's referencing patterns. We explore to what extent the selection of referenced literature of Wikipedia's central article on CRISPR adheres to scientific standards and inner-scientific perspectives by assessing its overlap with (1) the Web of Science (WoS) database, (2) a WoS-based field-delineated corpus, (3) highly-cited publications within this corpus, and (4) publications referenced by field-specific reviews. We develop a diachronic perspective on citation latency and compare the delays with which publications are cited in relevant Wikipedia articles to the citation dynamics of these publications over time. Our results confirm that a combination of verbatim searches by title, DOI, and PMID is sufficient and cannot be improved significantly by more elaborate search heuristics. We show that Wikipedia references a substantial amount of publications that are recognized by experts and highly cited, but that Wikipedia also cites less visible literature, and, to a certain degree, even not strictly scientific literature. Delays in occurrence on Wikipedia compared to the publication years show (most pronounced in case of the central CRISPR article) a dependence on the dynamics of both the field and the editor's reaction to it in terms of activity.

“I updated the <ref>”: The evolution of references in the English Wikipedia and the implications for altmetrics

With this work, we present a publicly available data set of the history of all the references (more than 55 million) ever used in the English Wikipedia until June 2019. We have applied a new method for identifying and monitoring references in Wikipedia, so that for each reference we can provide data about associated actions: creation, modifications, deletions, and reinsertions. The high accuracy of this method and the resulting data set was confirmed via a comprehensive crowdworker labeling campaign. We use the data set to study the temporal evolution of Wikipedia references as well as users’ editing behavior. We find evidence of a mostly productive and continuous effort to improve the quality of references: There is a persistent increase of reference and document identifiers (DOI, PubMedID, PMC, ISBN, ISSN, ArXiv ID) and most of the reference curation work is done by registered humans (not bots or anonymous editors). We conclude that the evolution of Wikipedia references, including the dynamics of the community processes that tend to them, should be leveraged in the design of relevance indexes for altmetrics, and our data set can be pivotal for such an effort.