Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Filling in the Blanks? A Systematic Review and Theoretical Conceptualisation for Measuring WikiData Content Gaps

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that content gaps in Wikidata can be organized into a typology and measured through a nine-dimension framework derived from a systematic review of 45 studies.

desk verdict A useful, honest review whose completeness claim is undercut by the authors' own exclusion of qualitative evidence on exactly the gaps they say are unstudied. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16383 v2 pith:25QSPK42 submitted 2025-05-22 cs.SI

Marisa Ripoll , Neal Reeves , Anelia Kurteva , Elena Simperl , Albert Meroño Peñuela , Klaus Diepold This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords Wikidatacontentgapsknowledgegraphqualitysystematicliteraturereviewbiasmeasurementcompletenesstheoreticalframeworkmetrics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Wikidata, the collaborative knowledge graph behind Wikipedia, is unevenly filled: some items are rich, many are thin, and entire topics, languages, and demographic groups are systematically underrepresented. The paper argues that these content gaps are not a single phenomenon and should not be measured with ad hoc metrics. It synthesizes the published evidence into a typology of observed gaps and a nine-dimension theoretical framework for defining, locating, and scaling future gap measurements. If the framework is adopted, studies of Wikidata gaps become comparable with each other and with gap research in other knowledge graphs, instead of being one-off analyses.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the nine-dimension framework: Level (where in the item-class hierarchy a gap sits), Intrinsicity (whether the gap originates inside Wikidata or mirrors outside reality), Determination (asserted versus inferred knowledge), Scale (how many entities are needed to observe the gap), Features (structural triples versus descriptive text), Temporality (whether the gap changes over time), Directness (direct counts versus comparisons or proxies), Source (editor behaviour, ontology, or schema), and Granularity (from two properties to the whole graph). The framework's work is to give researchers a shared coordinate system so that a gender gap measured at the class level with exogenous indices and a language gap measured at the description level can be classified, compared, and checked for blind spots.

What would settle it

Run the same review protocol with an expanded term set that includes completeness, accuracy, consistency, and quality, and code the additional studies against the typology and nine dimensions; if any recurring gap form fits no dimension or typology category, the framework as stated is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that content gaps in Wikidata can be conceptualised as a multidimensional phenomenon rather than a simple absence of data. Based on 45 peer-reviewed studies, it identifies gaps in demographic coverage, socio-economic standing, occupation, geography, and recency, and it observes that such gaps manifest as missing presence, reduced quality, inaccuracy, or incompleteness. To make these observations measurable, the paper proposes a framework with nine dimensions — level, intrinsicity, determination, scale, features, temporality, directness, source, and granularity — and classifies the metrics found in the literature according to those dimensions. The authors state that the framework is intended to conceptualise gaps as they arise in Wikidata and to support their measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's completeness rests on the assumption that the chosen search terms and the restriction to quantitative, peer-reviewed studies captured all relevant work; studies framed as completeness, accuracy, or consistency, or conducted qualitatively, may reveal gap forms the nine dimensions miss.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can classify any Wikidata gap study by its nine-dimension profile, making results from different studies directly comparable.
  • Under-studied cells become visible: class-level gaps, temporally tracked gaps, and gaps detected through inference received little attention in the reviewed literature.
  • The typology gives the Wikidata community a checklist of known gap forms, which can guide editor-facing dashboards and targeted editing campaigns.
  • Metrics in the literature can be mapped to gap types and dimensions, exposing where existing measurement tools are missing or one-off.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the same nine dimensions could be applied to other collaborative knowledge graphs with a similar item-class structure, turning the framework into a comparative instrument for knowledge graph completeness research.
  • Beyond the paper: because the review restricted itself to quantitative, peer-reviewed studies using gap, coverage, and bias vocabulary, an expanded review using quality, completeness, accuracy, and consistency terms would likely surface new gap forms and additional dimensions.
  • Beyond the paper: a testable extension is to operationalise the dimensions as annotation labels and have independent coders classify a fresh sample of Wikidata studies; intercoder agreement would show whether the dimensions are actually distinct and stable.
  • Beyond the paper: combining dimensions, for example tracking the temporality of class-level intrinsic gaps over several years, could reveal whether Wikidata's gaps are narrowing or widening in ways single snapshot studies cannot.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a systematic literature review of content gaps in Wikidata. From 216 initial database results, 19 papers were selected and expanded via forward and backward citation tracing to 45 papers, which are synthesised into a typology of gap categories (gender, race, socio-economic, occupation, citizenship, culture, language, recency, and manifestation forms such as presence, quality, accuracy, and completeness) and a nine-dimension theoretical framework (level, intrinsicity, determination, scale, features, temporality, directness, source, and granularity). The paper then classifies the metrics used in the literature into basic, comparative, and complex categories and discusses implications for collaboration, generalisability, and future research. The stated contribution is a common vocabulary and a measurement checklist for Wikidata gaps.

Significance. The proposal is timely and useful: the Wikidata gap literature is fragmented, and a consolidated typology plus a dimension-based framework would help researchers compare results and choose metrics. The systematic review protocol is transparent, and the paper is candid about the small sample and about the lack of consistent terminology in the field. The metric inventory in Section 6 is a practical asset. However, the central coverage claim—that the nine dimensions 'cover the distinct forms such gaps may take'—is not yet established, because the inclusion criteria in Section 3.2 exclude qualitative and community-based studies, and Section 7.3.1 then reports an absence of sexuality-related gaps that is manufactured by that exclusion. The contribution is therefore a plausible conceptual synthesis rather than a validated, complete framework; the gap between claim and evidence is repairable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 7.3.1] The 'Quantitative analysis' inclusion criterion is load-bearing for the paper's coverage claim. Section 3.2 excludes qualitative work as 'largely theoretical and insufficient for objectively judging the presence of gaps,' but Section 7.3.1 then states that 'we found no consideration of a sexuality-related gap within the literature,' immediately after citing Weathington and Brubaker [76], a Wikidata-specific qualitative study of queer identity erasure. The claimed absence is an artifact of the exclusion criterion rather than a finding about the literature. Because Section 5 asserts that the nine dimensions 'aim to cover the distinct forms such gaps may take,' the review needs to include such qualitative evidence (or justify its exclusion with a sensitivity analysis), and the 'no sexuality gap' statement needs to be reconciled with [76].
  2. [Section 5] The framework's completeness and validity are asserted but not demonstrated. The nine dimensions are introduced as covering 'the distinct forms such gaps may take, but also the scale and extent of such gaps,' yet the paper provides no coverage argument and no validation of the dimensions against an external reference, such as the Wikimedia Foundation's own gap taxonomy (Redi et al., ref. [61], cited in Section 7.3.1) or an independent coding of the 45-paper corpus. Section 7.5 acknowledges that the study 'was inevitably unable to capture the views of the Wikidata community,' but this acknowledged limitation is in tension with the abstract's claim to 'contribute a theoretical framework intended to conceptualise gaps.' The authors should either add a validation or comparison step or soften the completeness wording throughout.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Section 7.5] The expansion strategy cannot repair the limited direct search. Only 19 papers came from the four-database query, and the remaining 26 were found by citation tracing from those seeds. Citation tracing can only recover papers that share vocabulary or citations with the seeds; the Section 7.5 acknowledgment that studies using terms such as 'completeness,' 'accuracy,' or 'consistency' may have been missed is therefore a structural feature of the method, not merely a residual risk. The paper should report the number of papers by inclusion path and discuss which gap forms could be systematically invisible to the snowball, such as qualitative work, work indexed under different terminology, or work in non-English venues.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 and Introduction] The introduction promises a typology of gaps 'present within Wikipedia not analysed within Wikidata,' but Section 4 states that the typology 'covers only those gaps for which we found direct evidence in Wikidata.' Please clarify whether the typology includes Wikipedia-only gaps or not.
  2. [Throughout] The name 'WikiData' appears with inconsistent capitalisation in the title, abstract, and keywords; the project's official name is 'Wikidata.'
  3. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The Web of Science query string lacks parentheses around the OR clauses, so the boolean precedence is ambiguous; please report the exact executed query.
  4. [Section 5.2, Section 5.6, Section 7.3.4] There are several typos and wording issues: 'intrisic' in Section 5.2, 'temporary nature' should be 'temporal nature' in Section 5.6, and 'Wikikdata' in Section 7.3.4.
  5. [Section 6.1.3 and Section 6.1.6] The phrase 'can overcome help to add additional context' in Section 6.1.3 is ungrammatical, and 'an analysis on the gendered presentation' in Section 6.1.6 should be 'an analysis of the gendered presentation.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the typology and framework are explicitly drawn from the reviewed literature and are not derived from themselves.

full rationale

This paper is a systematic literature review and conceptual synthesis, not a formal derivation. Its stated contributions—a typology of Wikidata content gaps and a nine-dimensional framework for conceptualising them—are explicitly described as derived from prior research ('We propose a typology of gaps based on prior research' and 'we formulate existing research findings into a typology'), and the framework is then applied back to the same literature to organise metrics and identify open questions. That is the normal interpretive loop of a review, not a constructional equivalence: the dimensions are generalisations of observations in the surveyed papers, and the paper does not claim to predict an independent outcome from them. The self-citations (e.g., Abián et al. [1], Kaffee et al. [33,34], Piscopo and Simperl [55,56,57]) are ordinary empirical prior publications, not uniqueness theorems, fitted parameters, or definitions that pre-empt the conclusions. The most substantive concern is the exclusion of qualitative studies in Section 3.2, which the paper itself connects to the possibility of missed research in Section 7.5. This is visible in Section 7.3.1, where the paper states 'we found no consideration of a sexuality-related gap within the literature' while immediately citing Weathington and Brubaker [76], a study about queerness on Wikidata. This is an internal validity and completeness limitation, and the authors flag the general risk, but it is not a circular derivation: the framework's coverage claim is an 'aim' rather than a proven theorem, and the typology explicitly disclaims exhaustiveness ('This list covers only those gaps for which we found direct evidence in Wikidata and is therefore unlikely to be exhaustive'). No step exhibits an equation or definition that reduces the output to its inputs, so no circularity step is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or newly postulated entities are introduced. The conceptual dimensions of the framework are synthesized from prior literature rather than measured, so the ledger contains only domain assumptions about the adequacy of the evidence base.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Peer-reviewed quantitative studies indexed by the four chosen databases and using the chosen search terms are a sufficient evidence base for deriving a typology of Wikidata content gaps.
    The entire selection process in Section 3 assumes these sources cover the relevant literature. Section 7.5 explicitly concedes that inconsistent terminology may have caused the authors to miss relevant studies.
  • domain assumption Qualitative and non-peer-reviewed evidence cannot objectively establish the presence of content gaps.
    In Section 3.2, the authors remove non-peer-reviewed results and exclude qualitative analyses as 'largely theoretical and insufficient for objectively judging the presence of gaps', which narrows the evidence base.
  • domain assumption The 45 identified papers are representative enough that the derived nine-dimension framework covers the distinct forms gaps may take.
    The typology in Section 4 is stated to be 'unlikely to be exhaustive', yet the framework in Section 5 is presented as a general conceptualization. This representativeness assumption is load-bearing but not independently validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Filling in the Blanks? A Systematic Review and Theoretical Conceptualisation for Measuring WikiData Content Gaps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25QSPK42

@misc{pith2026250516383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Filling in the Blanks? A Systematic Review and Theoretical Conceptualisation for Measuring WikiData Content Gaps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25QSPK42}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16383}
}
read the original abstract

Wikidata is a collaborative knowledge graph which provides machine-readable structured data for Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia. Managed by a community of volunteers, it has grown to become the most edited Wikimedia project. However, it features a long-tail of items with limited data and a number of systematic gaps within the available content. In this paper, we present the results of a systematic literature review aimed to understand the state of these content gaps within Wikidata. We propose a typology of gaps based on prior research and contribute a theoretical framework intended to conceptualise gaps and support their measurement. We also describe the methods and metrics present used within the literature and classify them according to our framework to identify overlooked gaps that might occur in Wikidata. We then discuss the implications for collaboration and editor activity within Wikidata as well as future research directions. Our results contribute to the understanding of quality, completeness and the impact of systematic biases within Wikidata and knowledge gaps more generally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wikidata entity page for Q1 – The Universe. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structural Map of Content Gap Typology present in Literature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Visual Summary of Theoretical Framework When identifying, characterising and quantifying gaps it is important to consider the level at which these gaps occur and the level at which they are being measured. Gaps which occur in particular classes may occur in subclasses [8], but it is equally possible for a subclass or item to feature distinct gaps from its parent class [60]. Despite this, the majority of examples wit… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [76]

    Katy Weathington and Jed R Brubaker. 2023. Queer identities, normative databases: Challenges to capturing queerness on Wikidata. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–26

    work page 2023

  2. [61]

    Miriam Redi, Martin Gerlach, Isaac Johnson, Jonathan Morgan, and Leila Zia. 2020. A taxonomy of knowledge gaps for wikimedia projects (second draft). arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.12314 (2020)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    David Abián, Albert Meroño-Peñuela, and Elena Simperl. 2022. An analysis of content gaps versus user needs in the wikidata knowledge graph. In International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 354–374

    2022

  4. [2]

    Waq¯as Ahmed and Martin Lewis Poulter. 2023. Representation of non-western cultural knowledge on Wikipedia: The case of the visual arts. Digital Studies/Le champ numérique 13, 1 (2023)

    2023

  5. [3]

    Albin Ahmeti, Simon Razniewski, and Axel Polleres. 2017. Assessing the completeness of entities in knowledge bases. In The Semantic Web: ESWC 2017 Satellite Events: ESWC 2017 Satellite Events, Portorož, Slovenia, May 28–June 1, 2017, Revised Selected Papers 14 . Springer, 7–11

    2017

  6. [4]

    Gabriel Amaral, Alessandro Piscopo, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, Odinaldo Rodrigues, and Elena Simperl. 2021. Assessing the quality of sources in Wikidata across languages: a hybrid approach. Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ) 13, 4 (2021), 1–35

    2021

  7. [5]

    Mario Arduini, Lorenzo Noci, Federico Pirovano, Ce Zhang, Yash Raj Shrestha, and Bibek Paudel. 2020. Adversarial learning for debiasing knowledge graph embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16309 (2020)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    Vevake Balaraman, Simon Razniewski, and Werner Nutt. 2018. Recoin: relative completeness in Wikidata. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018. 1787–1792

    2018

Show all 85 references
  1. [7]

    Sofia Baroncini, Margherita Martorana, Mario Scrocca, Zuzanna Smiech, and Axel Polleres. 2022. Analysing the Evolution of Community-Driven (Sub-) Schemas within Wikidata.. In Wikidata@ ISWC

    2022

  2. [8]

    Bettina Berendt, Oğuz Özgür Karadeniz, Sercan Kıyak, Stefan Mertens, and Leen d’Haenens. 2023. Diversity and bias in DBpedia and Wikidata as a challenge for text-analysis tools. o-bib. Das offene Bibliotheksjournal/Herausgeber VDB 10, 2 (2023), 1–12

    2023

  3. [9]

    Rishi Bommasani, Percy Liang, and Tony Lee. 2023. Holistic evaluation of language models. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1525, 1 (2023), 140–146

    2023

  4. [10]

    Styliani Bourli and Evaggelia Pitoura. 2020. Bias in knowledge graph embeddings. In 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 6–10

    2020

  5. [11]

    Sandrine Bubendorff, Caroline Rizza, and Christophe Prieur. 2021. Construction and dissemination of information veracity on French social media during crises: Comparison of Twitter and Wikipedia. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 29, 2 (2021), 204–216

    2021

  6. [12]

    Benjamin Cabrera, Björn Ross, Marielle Dado, and Maritta Heisel. 2018. The gender gap in Wikipedia talk pages. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 12

    2018

  7. [13]

    Ewa S Callahan and Susan C Herring. 2011. Cultural bias in Wikipedia content on famous persons. Journal of the American society for information science and technology 62, 10 (2011), 1899–1915

    2011

  8. [14]

    Miquel Centelles and Núria Ferran-Ferrer. 2024. Assessing knowledge organization systems from a gender perspective: Wikipedia taxonomy and Wikidata ontologies. Journal of Documentation 80, 7 (2024), 124–147

    2024

  9. [15]

    Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, et al. 2024. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15, 3 (2024), 1–45. Manuscript submitte...

    2024

  10. [16]

    Simone Conia, Min Li, Daniel Lee, Umar Farooq Minhas, Ihab Ilyas, and Yunyao Li. 2023. Increasing coverage and precision of textual information in multilingual knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15781 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Paramita Das, Sai Keerthana Karnam, Anirban Panda, Bhanu Prakash Reddy Guda, Soumya Sarkar, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2023. Diversity matters: Robustness of bias measurements in Wikidata. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023 . 208–218

    2023

  12. [18]

    Gianluca Demartini. 2019. Implicit bias in crowdsourced knowledge graphs. In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference . 624–630

    2019

  13. [19]

    Daniel Erenrich. 2023. Psychiq and Wwwyzzerdd: Wikidata completion using Wikipedia. Semantic Web Preprint (2023), 1–14

    2023

  14. [20]

    Michael Färber, Frederic Bartscherer, Carsten Menne, and Achim Rettinger. 2018. Linked data quality of dbpedia, freebase, opencyc, wikidata, and yago. Semantic Web 9, 1 (2018), 77–129

    2018

  15. [21]

    Dieter Fensel, Umutcan Şimşek, Kevin Angele, Elwin Huaman, Elias Kärle, Oleksandra Panasiuk, Ioan Toma, Jürgen Umbrich, Alexander Wahler, Dieter Fensel, et al. 2020. Introduction: what is a knowledge graph? Knowledge graphs: Methodology, tools and selected use cases (2020), 1–10

    2020

  16. [22]

    Anjalie Field, Chan Young Park, Kevin Z Lin, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2022. Controlled analyses of social biases in Wikipedia bios. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 2624–2635

    2022

  17. [23]

    Joseph Fisher, Arpit Mittal, Dave Palfrey, and Christos Christodoulopoulos. 2020. Debiasing knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) . 7332–7345

    2020

  18. [24]

    Joseph Fisher, Dave Palfrey, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2019. Measuring social bias in knowledge graph embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02761 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Barbara Silveira Fraga, Ana Paula Couto da Silva, and Fabricio Murai. 2018. Online social networks in health care: a study of mental disorders on Reddit. In 2018 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI) . IEEE, 568–573

    2018

  20. [26]

    Luis Galárraga, Simon Razniewski, Antoine Amarilli, and Fabian M Suchanek. 2017. Predicting completeness in knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the tenth acm international conference on web search and data mining . 375–383

    2017

  21. [27]

    Johanna Geiß, Andreas Spitz, and Michael Gertz. 2015. Beyond friendships and followers: The Wikipedia social network. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015 . 472–479

    2015

  22. [28]

    Eduardo Graells-Garrido, Mounia Lalmas, and Filippo Menczer. 2015. First women, second sex: Gender bias in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM conference on hypertext & social media . 165–174

    2015

  23. [29]

    Mark Graham, Ralph K Straumann, and Bernie Hogan. 2015. Digital divisions of labor and informational magnetism: Mapping participation in Wikipedia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105, 6 (2015), 1158–1178

    2015

  24. [30]

    Kelvin Han, Thiago Castro Ferreira, and Claire Gardent. 2022. Generating questions from Wikidata triples. In 13th Edition of its Language Resources and Evaluation Conference

    2022

  25. [31]

    Laura Hollink, Astrid Van Aggelen, and Jacco Van Ossenbruggen. 2018. Using the web of data to study gender differences in online knowledge sources: the case of the European parliament. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on web science . 381–385

    2018

  26. [32]

    Dariusz Jemielniak and Maciej Wilamowski. 2017. Cultural diversity of quality of information on Wikipedias. Journal of the association for information science and technology 68, 10 (2017), 2460–2470

    2017

  27. [33]

    Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, Alessandro Piscopo, Pavlos Vougiouklis, Elena Simperl, Leslie Carr, and Lydia Pintscher. 2017. A glimpse into Babel: an analysis of multilinguality in Wikidata. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration . 1–5

    2017

  28. [34]

    Lucie-Aimée Kaffee and Elena Simperl. 2018. Analysis of editors’ languages in wikidata. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration. 1–5

    2018

  29. [35]

    Timothy Kanke. 2021. Knowledge curation work in Wikidata WikiProject discussions. Library hi tech 39, 1 (2021), 64–79

    2021

  30. [36]

    Brian Keegan, Darren Gergle, and Noshir Contractor. 2013. Hot off the wiki: Structures and dynamics of Wikipedia’s coverage of breaking news events. American behavioral scientist 57, 5 (2013), 595–622

    2013

  31. [37]

    Brian C Keegan and Jed R Brubaker. 2015. ’Is’ to’Was’ Coordination and Commemoration in Posthumous Activity on Wikipedia Biographies. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing . 533–546

    2015

  32. [38]

    Maximilian Klein, Harsh Gupta, Vivek Rai, Piotr Konieczny, and Haiyi Zhu. 2016. Monitoring the gender gap with wikidata human gender indicators. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Open Collaboration . 1–9

    2016

  33. [39]

    Piotr Konieczny. 2020. Macro-level differences in participation in sharing economy: factors affecting contributions to the collective intelligence wikipedia platform across different Asian Countries. Asian Journal of Social Science 48, 1-2 (2020), 115–149

    2020

  34. [40]

    Piotr Konieczny and Maximilian Klein. 2018. Gender gap through time and space: A journey through Wikipedia biographies via the Wikidata Human Gender Indicator. New media & society 20, 12 (2018), 4608–4633

    2018

  35. [41]

    Piotr Konieczny and Włodzimierz Lewoniewski. 2024. Quantifying Americanization: Coverage of American Topics in Different Wikipedias. Social Science Computer Review (2024), 08944393231220165

    2024

  36. [42]

    too soon

    Mackenzie Emily Lemieux, Rebecca Zhang, and Francesca Tripodi. 2023. “too soon” to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Wikipedia. Big Data & Society 10, 1 (2023), 20539517231165490

    2023

  37. [43]

    Michael Luggen, Julien Audiffren, Djellel Difallah, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. 2021. Wiki2prop: A multimodal approach for predicting wikidata properties from wikipedia. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . 2357–2366

    2021

  38. [44]

    Michael Luggen, Djellel Difallah, Cristina Sarasua, Gianluca Demartini, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. 2019. Non-parametric class completeness estimators for collaborative knowledge graphs—the case of wikidata. In The Semantic Web–ISWC 2019: 18th International Semantic Web Confer...

    2019

  39. [45]

    Brendan Luyt. 2018. Wikipedia’s gaps in coverage: are Wikiprojects a solution? A study of the Cambodian Wikiproject. Online information review 42, 2 (2018), 238–249

    2018

  40. [46]

    Julie McDonough Dolmaya. 2017. Expanding the sum of all human knowledge: Wikipedia, translation and linguistic justice. The Translator 23, 2 (2017), 143–157

    2017

  41. [47]

    Marc Miquel-Ribé and David Laniado. 2018. Wikipedia culture gap: quantifying content imbalances across 40 language editions. Frontiers in physics 6 (2018), 54

    2018

  42. [48]

    Marc Miquel-Ribé and David Laniado. 2019. Wikipedia cultural diversity dataset: A complete cartography for 300 language editions. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 13. 620–629

    2019

  43. [49]

    Marc Miquel-Ribé and David Laniado. 2021. The Wikipedia Diversity Observatory: helping communities to bridge content gaps through interactive interfaces. Journal of internet services and applications 12, 1 (2021), 10

    2021

  44. [50]

    Marçal Mora-Cantallops, Salvador Sánchez-Alonso, and Elena García-Barriocanal. 2019. A systematic literature review on Wikidata.Data Technologies and Applications 53, 3 (2019), 250–268

    2019

  45. [51]

    Claudia Müller-Birn, Benjamin Karran, Janette Lehmann, and Markus Luczak-Rösch. 2015. Peer-production system or collaborative ontology engineering effort: What is Wikidata?. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Open Collaboration . 1–10

    2015

  46. [52]

    Andrei Nesterov, Laura Hollink, and Jacco van Ossenbruggen. 2024. How contentious terms about people and cultures are used in linked open data. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 4523–4533

    2024

  47. [53]

    Shirui Pan, Linhao Luo, Yufei Wang, Chen Chen, Jiapu Wang, and Xindong Wu. 2024. Unifying large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2024)

    2024

  48. [54]

    Ciyuan Peng, Feng Xia, Mehdi Naseriparsa, and Francesco Osborne. 2023. Knowledge graphs: Opportunities and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review 56, 11 (2023), 13071–13102

    2023

  49. [55]

    Alessandro Piscopo, Chris Phethean, and Elena Simperl. 2017. What makes a good collaborative knowledge graph: group composition and quality in wikidata. In Social Informatics: 9th International Conference, SocInfo 2017, Oxford, UK, September 13-15, 2017, Proceedings, Part I 9 ...

    2017

  50. [56]

    Alessandro Piscopo and Elena Simperl. 2018. Who models the world? Collaborative ontology creation and user roles in Wikidata. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–18

    2018

  51. [57]

    Alessandro Piscopo and Elena Simperl. 2019. What we talk about when we talk about Wikidata quality: a literature survey. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Open Collaboration . 1–11

    2019

  52. [58]

    Wessel Radstok, Mel Chekol, Mirko Schaefer, et al. 2021. Are knowledge graph embedding models biased, or is it the data that they are trained on?. In Wikidata Workshop 2021 Co-Located with the 20th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2021)

    2021

  53. [59]

    Nadyah Hani Ramadhana, Fariz Darari, Panca O Hadi Putra, Werner Nutt, Simon Razniewski, and Refo Ilmiya Akbar. 2020. User-Centered Design for Knowledge Imbalance Analysis: A Case Study of ProWD.. In VOILA@ ISWC. 14–27

    2020

  54. [60]

    Millenio Ramadizsa, Fariz Darari, Werner Nutt, and Simon Razniewski. 2023. Knowledge Gap Discovery: A Case Study of Wikidata.. In Wikidata@ ISWC

    2023

  55. [62]

    Yuqing Ren, Haifeng Zhang, and Robert E Kraut. 2023. How did they build the free encyclopedia? a literature review of collaboration and coordination among wikipedia editors. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 31, 1 (2023), 1–48

    2023

  56. [63]

    Marc Miquel Ribé, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, and Jeffrey M Keefer. 2021. Bridging LGBT+ content gaps across Wikipedia language editions. The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion 5, 4 (2021), 90–131

    2021

  57. [64]

    Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, Lexing Xie, Tiberio Caetano, and Manuel Cebrian. 2016. Evolution of privacy loss in wikipedia. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 215–224

    2016

  58. [65]

    Lucia Sardo and Carlo Bianchini. 2022. Wikidata: a new perspective towards universal bibliographic control. JLIS: Italian Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science= Rivista italiana di biblioteconomia, archivistica e scienza dell’informazione: 13, 1, 2022 (2022), 291–311

    2022

  59. [66]

    Zaina Shaik, Filip Ilievski, and Fred Morstatter. 2021. Analyzing race and citizenship bias in Wikidata. In 2021 IEEE 18th international conference on mobile Ad Hoc and smart systems (MASS) . IEEE, 665–666

    2021

  60. [67]

    Aaron Shaw and Eszter Hargittai. 2018. The pipeline of online participation inequalities: The case of Wikipedia editing. Journal of communication 68, 1 (2018), 143–168

    2018

  61. [68]

    Kartik Shenoy, Filip Ilievski, Daniel Garijo, Daniel Schwabe, and Pedro Szekely. 2022. A study of the quality of Wikidata. Journal of Web Semantics 72 (2022), 100679

    2022

  62. [69]

    Umutcan Simsek, Elias Kärle, Kevin Angele, Elwin Huaman, Juliette Opdenplatz, Dennis Sommer, Jürgen Umbrich, and Dieter Fensel. 2022. A knowledge graph perspective on knowledge engineering. SN Computer Science 4, 1 (2022), 16

    2022

  63. [70]

    Sanju Tiwari, Fatima N Al-Aswadi, and Devottam Gaurav. 2021. Recent trends in knowledge graphs: theory and practice. Soft Computing 25 (2021), 8337–8355

    2021

  64. [71]

    Houcemeddine Turki, Denny Vrandecic, Helmi Hamdi, and Imed Adel. 2017. Using WikiData as a multi-lingual multi-dialectal dictionary for Arabic dialects. In 2017 IEEE/ACS 14th International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA) . IEEE, 437–442. Manuscript sub...

    2017

  65. [72]

    Marlon Twyman, Brian C Keegan, and Aaron Shaw. 2017. Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia: Collective memory and collaboration around online social movements. In Proceedings of the 2017 acm conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing . 1400–1412

    2017

  66. [73]

    Denny Vrandečić and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM 57, 10 (2014), 78–85

    2014

  67. [74]

    Denny Vrandečić, Lydia Pintscher, and Markus Krötzsch. 2023. Wikidata: The making of. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 . 615–624

    2023

  68. [75]

    Claudia Wagner, Eduardo Graells-Garrido, David Garcia, and Filippo Menczer. 2016. Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia. EPJ data science 5 (2016), 1–24

    2016

  69. [77]

    Zena Worku, Taryn Bipat, David W McDonald, and Mark Zachry. 2020. Exploring systematic bias through article deletions on Wikipedia from a behavioral perspective. In Proceedings of the 16th international symposium on open collaboration . 1–22

    2020

  70. [78]

    Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2019. Explainable AI: A brief survey on history, research areas, approaches and challenges. In Natural language processing and Chinese computing: 8th cCF international conference, NLPCC 2019, dunhuang, ...

    2019

  71. [79]

    Amber G Young, Ariel D Wigdor, and Gerald C Kane. 2020. The gender bias tug-of-war in a co-creation community: Core-periphery tension on Wikipedia. Journal of management information systems 37, 4 (2020), 1047–1072

    2020

  72. [80]

    (Weitergeleitet von Journalistin)

    Olga Zagovora, Fabian Flöck, and Claudia Wagner. 2017. "(Weitergeleitet von Journalistin)" The Gendered Presentation of Professions on Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on web science conference . 83–92

    2017

  73. [81]

    Amrapali Zaveri, Anisa Rula, Andrea Maurino, Ricardo Pietrobon, Jens Lehmann, and Soeren Auer. 2016. Quality assessment for linked data: A survey. Semantic Web 7, 1 (2016), 63–93

    2016

  74. [82]

    Charles Chuankai Zhang, Mo Houtti, C Estelle Smith, Ruoyan Kong, and Loren Terveen. 2022. Working for the Invisible Machines or Pumping Information into an Empty Void? An Exploration of Wikidata Contributors’ Motivations. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 6,...

    2022

  75. [83]

    Charles Chuankai Zhang and Loren Terveen. 2021. Quantifying the gap: a case study of Wikidata gender disparities. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Open Collaboration . 1–12

    2021

  76. [84]

    Lei Zheng, Christopher M Albano, Neev M Vora, Feng Mai, and Jeffrey V Nickerson. 2019. The roles bots play in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–20

    2019

  77. [85]

    Xiaohan Zou. 2020. A survey on application of knowledge graph. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series , Vol. 1487. IOP Publishing, 012016. Received Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.