BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Miriam Redi

Miriam Redi contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYDatabasesDigital LibrariesInformation RetrievalSocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

A Taxonomy of Knowledge Gaps for Wikimedia Projects (Second Draft)

In January 2019, prompted by the Wikimedia Movement's 2030 strategic direction, the Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation identified the need to develop a knowledge gaps index -- a composite index to support the decision makers across the Wikimedia movement by providing: a framework to encourage structured and targeted brainstorming discussions; data on the state of the knowledge gaps across the Wikimedia projects that can inform decision making and assist with measuring the long term impact of large scale initiatives in the Movement. After its first release in July 2020, the Research team has developed the second complete draft of a taxonomy of knowledge gaps for the Wikimedia projects, as the first step towards building the knowledge gap index. We studied more than 250 references by scholars, researchers, practitioners, community members and affiliates -- exposing evidence of knowledge gaps in readership, contributorship, and content of Wikimedia projects. We elaborated the findings and compiled the taxonomy of knowledge gaps in this paper, where we describe, group and classify knowledge gaps into a structured framework. The taxonomy that you will learn more about in the rest of this work will serve as a basis to operationalize and quantify knowledge equity, one of the two 2030 strategic directions, through the knowledge gaps index.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

On the Value of Wikipedia as a Gateway to the Web

By linking to external websites, Wikipedia can act as a gateway to the Web. To date, however, little is known about the amount of traffic generated by Wikipedia's external links. We fill this gap in a detailed analysis of usage logs gathered from Wikipedia users' client devices. Our analysis proceeds in three steps: First, we quantify the level of engagement with external links, finding that, in one month, English Wikipedia generated 43M clicks to external websites, in roughly even parts via links in infoboxes, cited references, and article bodies. Official links listed in infoboxes have by far the highest click-through rate (CTR), 2.47% on average. In particular, official links associated with articles about businesses, educational institutions, and websites have the highest CTR, whereas official links associated with articles about geographical content, television, and music have the lowest CTR. Second, we investigate patterns of engagement with external links, finding that Wikipedia frequently serves as a stepping stone between search engines and third-party websites, effectively fulfilling information needs that search engines do not meet. Third, we quantify the hypothetical economic value of the clicks received by external websites from English Wikipedia, by estimating that the respective website owners would need to pay a total of $7--13 million per month to obtain the same volume of traffic via sponsored search. Overall, these findings shed light on Wikipedia's role not only as an important source of information, but also as a high-traffic gateway to the broader Web ecosystem.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

FaceLift: A transparent deep learning framework to beautify urban scenes

In the area of computer vision, deep learning techniques have recently been used to predict whether urban scenes are likely to be considered beautiful: it turns out that these techniques are able to make accurate predictions. Yet they fall short when it comes to generating actionable insights for urban design. To support urban interventions, one needs to go beyond predicting beauty, and tackle the challenge of recreating beauty. Unfortunately, deep learning techniques have not been designed with that challenge in mind. Given their "black-box nature", these models cannot be directly used to explain why a particular urban scene is deemed to be beautiful. To partly fix that, we propose a deep learning framework called Facelift, that is able to both beautify existing urban scenes (Google Street views) and explain which urban elements make those transformed scenes beautiful. To quantitatively evaluate our framework, we cannot resort to any existing metric (as the research problem at hand has never been tackled before) and need to formulate new ones. These new metrics should ideally capture the presence/absence of elements that make urban spaces great. Upon a review of the urban planning literature, we identify five main metrics: walkability, green spaces, openness, landmarks and visual complexity. We find that, across all the five metrics, the beautified scenes meet the expectations set by the literature on what great spaces tend to be made of. This result is further confirmed by a 20-participant expert survey in which FaceLift have been found to be effective in promoting citizen participation. All this suggests that, in the future, as our framework's components are further researched and become better and more sophisticated, it is not hard to imagine technologies that will be able to accurately and efficiently support architects and planners in the design of spaces we intuitively love.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Proceedings of the KG-BIAS Workshop 2020 at AKBC 2020

The KG-BIAS 2020 workshop touches on biases and how they surface in knowledge graphs (KGs), biases in the source data that is used to create KGs, methods for measuring or remediating bias in KGs, but also identifying other biases such as how and which languages are represented in automatically constructed KGs or how personal KGs might incur inherent biases. The goal of this workshop is to uncover how various types of biases are introduced into KGs, investigate how to measure, and propose methods to remediate them.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is one of the most visited sites on the Web and a common source of information for many users. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a source of original information, but was conceived as a gateway to secondary sources: according to Wikipedia's guidelines, facts must be backed up by reliable sources that reflect the full spectrum of views on the topic. Although citations lie at the very heart of Wikipedia, little is known about how users interact with them. To close this gap, we built client-side instrumentation for logging all interactions with links leading from English Wikipedia articles to cited references during one month, and conducted the first analysis of readers' interaction with citations on Wikipedia. We find that overall engagement with citations is low: about one in 300 page views results in a reference click (0.29% overall; 0.56% on desktop; 0.13% on mobile). Matched observational studies of the factors associated with reference clicking reveal that clicks occur more frequently on shorter pages and on pages of lower quality, suggesting that references are consulted more commonly when Wikipedia itself does not contain the information sought by the user. Moreover, we observe that recent content, open access sources and references about life events (births, deaths, marriages, etc) are particularly popular. Taken together, our findings open the door to a deeper understanding of Wikipedia's role in a global information economy where reliability is ever less certain, and source attribution ever more vital.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Wikipedia and Westminster: Quality and Dynamics of Wikipedia Pages about UK Politicians

Wikipedia is a major source of information providing a large variety of content online, trusted by readers from around the world. Readers go to Wikipedia to get reliable information about different subjects, one of the most popular being living people, and especially politicians. While a lot is known about the general usage and information consumption on Wikipedia, less is known about the life-cycle and quality of Wikipedia articles in the context of politics. The aim of this study is to quantify and qualify content production and consumption for articles about politicians, with a specific focus on UK Members of Parliament (MPs). First, we analyze spatio-temporal patterns of readers' and editors' engagement with MPs' Wikipedia pages, finding huge peaks of attention during election times, related to signs of engagement on other social media (e.g. Twitter). Second, we quantify editors' polarisation and find that most editors specialize in a specific party and choose specific news outlets as references. Finally we observe that the average citation quality is pretty high, with statements on 'Early life and career' missing citations most often (18%).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access