User: hey. for my social sciences research project, I am planning to do a qualitative study of one particular aspect of Wikipedia.

I need to propose a research area, research title,  research question, hypothesis, and research method. the project will be for 7-8 months so it should be not too complex.

Also, I want something that is original; it should not be a question that definitely has been answered before in others' research.

This is the introduction given to me; you may use it as you wish.
"(A) Wikipedia is a vast, rambling "universe" of information and knowledge. It is also a key element of our information infrastructure today. What are the problems it confronts? How is it responding to a changing social and technological environment? How does it represent people and places? What are its blind-spots? How have its norms of operation changed over time?
How can we understand Wikipedia as a cultural and social phenomenon? These are just a few of the questions that could be asked about Wikipedia by students wanting to explore either Wikipedia or another online encyclopedia from a social science perspective."
Assistant: I'll help you develop a unique research proposal for Wikipedia. Here's a suggestion that focuses on an understudied aspect:

Research Area:
Cultural representation and editorial dynamics in Wikipedia's "In the news" (ITN) section

Research Title:
"Breaking News on Wikipedia: A Qualitative Analysis of Global Event Selection and Regional Representation in Wikipedia's 'In the news' Section"

Research Question:
How do Wikipedia's editorial community decisions and discussions shape the selection and presentation of current events in the "In the news" section, and what does this reveal about regional and cultural biases in global news representation?

Hypothesis:
The selection and presentation of events in Wikipedia's "In the news" section reflects inherent geographical and cultural biases, favoring Western events and perspectives, despite Wikipedia's goal of maintaining a neutral point of view.

Research Method:
Qualitative content analysis combining:
1. Documentation analysis of ITN discussions on talk pages (examining how editors decide which events make it to the main page)
2. Content analysis of featured news items over a 6-month period
3. Semi-structured interviews with active Wikipedia editors involved in ITN selections
4. Comparative analysis of featured events versus major global news events that didn't make it to ITN

This topic is original because:
- Few studies have focused specifically on the "In the news" section
- It combines current events, editorial decision-making, and cultural representation
- It's manageable within 7-8 months
- It provides insights into Wikipedia's role as a news curator
- It examines real-time decision-making processes rather than just static content

Would you like me to elaborate on any of these aspects?
User: could you be more specific on the qualitiative analysis methods? I still don't really get what I would actually do
Assistant: Let me break down the practical steps of how you would conduct this research:

Detailed Research Method:

1. Data Collection Phase (2-3 months):
- Collect screenshots of the "In the news" section daily
- Save all discussion pages related to ITN selections
- Create a spreadsheet to track:
  * What events were selected
  * Date of appearance
  * Geographic location of the event
  * Type of event (politics, disaster, sports, etc.)
  * Length of time featured

2. Editorial Discussion Analysis (2 months):
- Read through the talk pages where editors discuss which news items should be featured
- Code the discussions looking for:
  * Arguments for/against inclusion
  * References to notability criteria
  * Regional perspectives
  * Points of conflict
- Use qualitative coding software like NVivo or ATLAS.ti to organize these themes

3. Editor Interviews (1-2 months):
- Identify 8-10 active editors involved in ITN selections
- Conduct online interviews asking about:
  * How they decide what's newsworthy
  * Their experience with the selection process
  * Challenges they face
  * Their views on regional representation

4. Analysis and Writing (2 months):
- Compare what made it to ITN versus what didn't
- Analyze patterns in the decision-making process
- Write up findings about how Wikipedia handles current events

Would this help you visualize the actual work involved? I can provide even more specific examples if needed.
User: "Analyze patterns" and etc are still very vague - can you give specific examples and procedures
Assistant: Let me give you a very concrete example of how you would actually conduct this research, step by step:

PRACTICAL RESEARCH PROCEDURE:

1. DATA COLLECTION (Specific actions)
- Every day at the same time (e.g., 9 AM), take a screenshot of Wikipedia's "In the news" section
- Copy and save the corresponding discussion page for each news item
- Enter into an Excel spreadsheet:
   * Date
   * Headline
   * Country/region involved
   * Topic category (use preset categories like: politics, sports, disasters, entertainment, etc.)
   * Number of editors involved in discussion
   * Final vote count (support/oppose)

2. CODING THE DISCUSSIONS (Specific process)
Create a coding sheet with categories like:
```
REASON FOR INCLUSION:
- Death toll mentioned
- Political significance cited
- Historical precedent referenced
- Celebrity/famous person involved
- Scientific breakthrough
- etc.

REASON FOR REJECTION:
- Lack of reliable sources
- Too local
- Not notable enough
- Similar event already featured
- etc.
```

For each discussion, mark which reasons appear and collect specific quotes as examples.

3. PATTERN IDENTIFICATION (Concrete examples)
Count and compare:
- How many events from each region made it to ITN
- Which types of events are most common
- What reasons are most often cited for inclusion/exclusion

Example table:
```
Region    | Total Proposals | Accepted | Rejected
North Am. |      45        |    30    |    15
Europe    |      40        |    28    |    12
Asia      |      35        |    15    |    20
Africa    |      20        |     5    |    15
```

4. EDITOR INTERVIEWS
Specific questions:
- "Walk me through your process when deciding whether to support or oppose an ITN nomination"
- "Can you give me an example of a recent event you thought should have been included but wasn't?"
- "What sources do you typically consult when evaluating an ITN nomination?"

5. FINAL ANALYSIS
Create visual representations:
- Pie charts showing regional distribution
- Bar graphs comparing event types
- Timeline showing how long different types of events stay featured

Would this level of detail help you better understand the concrete steps involved? I can provide even more specific examples if needed.
User: State the purpose of research and the value of this research to the field.

in particular please mention why this is unique and bridges what gap
Assistant: ### Purpose of Research

The purpose of this research is to investigate how the editorial decisions and discussions within Wikipedia's "In the news" (ITN) section shape the representation of global events, with a particular focus on regional and cultural biases. By examining the criteria used to select newsworthy events and the discussions surrounding these choices, the study aims to uncover underlying patterns that reveal how certain events are prioritized over others, thus reflecting broader societal values and biases in the information ecosystem.

### Value of This Research to the Field

1. **Understanding Editorial Dynamics**: This research contributes to our understanding of how crowdsourced platforms like Wikipedia operate in real-time, particularly in the context of current events. By focusing on the ITN section, which is frequently updated and reflects immediate global concerns, the study provides insights into the mechanisms of editorial decision-making.

2. **Cultural Representation**: The study highlights how cultural and geographical biases manifest in a platform that claims to represent knowledge from a neutral point of view. By identifying which regions and types of events are underrepresented, the research can inform discussions about inclusivity and diversity in knowledge production.

3. **Informing Policy and Guidelines**: The findings could serve as a basis for Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, suggesting areas for improvement in how events are selected for the ITN section, thereby promoting a more balanced representation of global events.

### Uniqueness of the Research

This research is unique because it specifically focuses on the "In the news" section of Wikipedia, a relatively understudied aspect of the platform despite its significance in shaping public perception of current events. While there is existing literature on Wikipedia’s overall content quality, edit wars, and systemic biases, few studies have delved into the real-time editorial processes that influence how current events are selected and portrayed. 

### Bridging the Gap

1. **Literature Gap**: This study bridges a gap in existing social science research on Wikipedia by examining the intersection of current events, editorial practices, and cultural representation. Most existing research tends to focus on static content analysis rather than dynamic decision-making processes.

2. **Practical Implications**: By providing a nuanced understanding of how biases operate within the ITN section, this research has practical implications for Wikipedia editors and policy-makers, offering recommendations for more equitable representation of global events.

3. **Cultural Insights**: Additionally, this research can contribute to broader discussions on media representation and bias in the digital age, highlighting the role of collaborative platforms in shaping public discourse and knowledge dissemination.

By addressing these gaps, the research not only enhances our understanding of Wikipedia as a cultural phenomenon but also contributes to ongoing debates about representation, knowledge production, and the democratization of information in the digital era.
User: thanks! now I'm moving onto the Literature review section of the draft proposal.

I am asked to write about the following:
* What are the key discussions and debates on the research area?
* Why is there debate or disagreement on the issue?
* How does your research relate or respond to what has been done by others in the field?

now, I have actually gathered quite a few articles already. i've also written summaries of each article. please help me to consolidate them into the required literature review.

To reference the research, you can simply number them and quote numbers

keep the review within 400 words. however, please make it valuable

Improving Wikipedia's credibility : references and citations in a sample of history articles | DR-NTU
Abstract: This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site’s
policy of assuring verifiability through citations. It does so by examining the references and
citations of a subset of country histories. Its findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many
claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used.
Many of these are from only a few US government websites or news media and few are to
academic journal material. Given these results, one response would be to declare Wikipedia
unsuitable for serious reference work. But another option emerges when we jettison
technological determinism and look at Wikipedia as a product of a wider social context. Key to
this context is a world in which information is bottled up as commodities requiring payment for
access. Equally important is the problematic assumption that texts are undifferentiated bearers of
knowledge. Those involved in instructional programs can draw attention to the social nature of
texts to counter these assumption and by so doing create an awareness for a new generation of
Wikipedians and Wikipedia users of the need to evaluate texts (and hence citations) in light of
the social context of their production and use.

Main Focus: Evaluating the adherence of Wikipedia history articles to the site’s verifiability policy through an examination of citations and references. Specifically, it looks at a sample of country history articles.
Methodology: Content analysis of references and citations in a sample of 50 Wikipedia country history articles (later reduced to 48 due to plagiarism). Compared these to references and citations in articles from the Journal of World History as a benchmark.
Areas of Focus: Assessing the quality and reliability of references used in Wikipedia history articles, examining the extent of citation usage, and ultimately, exploring the broader implications for Wikipedia’s credibility.
Key Conclusion: Wikipedia history articles often lack sufficient and reliable citations. References tend to be heavily skewed towards US government websites and online news media, with limited use of academic sources. This reliance, coupled with the commodification of information and a limited understanding of text evaluation, impacts Wikipedia’s credibility. The authors suggest that information literacy efforts could address some of these issues.

Wikipedia's gaps in coverage : are Wikiprojects a solution? a study of the Cambodian Wikiproject | DR-NTU
Abstract: 
Purpose: This article examines the rather unsuccessful Wikiproject for Cambodia. Despite its lack of
success it is a case that can be used to draw lessens for dealing with the issue of geographical under-
representation on Wikipedia as a whole. After presenting evidence of the Wikiproject’s failure to
achieve the goals for which it was created, I will discuss the pressing issues of imbalances in
geographical coverage on Wikipedia as well as the deeper issues involved in remedying these
imbalances; namely, the question of who gets to represent whom.
Design/methodology/approach: I take a broadly qualitative approach to the study of Wikipedia. For
this study the Cambodia Wikiproject main page, as well as the various talk page archives associated
with it, was downloaded in November 2016 and subjected to a content analysis. Descriptive
statistics are also used when necessary to build the argument.
Findings: Wikiproject Cambodia has failed to appreciably improve the coverage of Cambodian topics.
This is likely due to its inability to attract for a prolonged period of time a champion able to anchor
the project and provide a sense that someone is listening. But the makeup of the project members
also suggests that even if a champion could be found, the question of who gets to represent whom
remains difficult to deal with. It is unlikely that Cambodia will anytime soon develop a strong
community of Wikipedia editors given the economic and social constraints the country imposes on
most of its population.
Originality/value: This work builds on the small, but growing body of literature dealing with coverage
gaps in Wikipedia. Given Wikipedia's growing importance as part of the everyday information
infrastructure people use, such gaps and potential solutions to these gaps should be a vital part of
the information science community's agenda.

Main Focus: Investigating whether Wikiprojects, specifically the Cambodia Wikiproject, effectively address gaps in Wikipedia’s coverage.
Methodology: Qualitative analysis of the Cambodia Wikiproject’s main page, talk page archives, and lists of articles needing creation or improvement. Descriptive statistics are also used.
Areas of Focus: Understanding the effectiveness of the Cambodia Wikiproject in improving Cambodia-related content, exploring reasons for its success or failure, and discussing broader issues of representation on Wikipedia.
Key Conclusion: The Cambodia Wikiproject has been largely unsuccessful in improving coverage. This is attributed to a lack of consistent “champion” editors to anchor the project and foster community, as well as broader issues related to representation (who gets to represent whom). The study suggests that institutional support for Wikiprojects, possibly from libraries or similar organizations, could help address these shortcomings.

Representation and the problem of bibliographic imagination on Wikipedia
The astonishing thing about Wikipedia is that despite the way it is produced, the product is as good as it
is and not far worse. But this is no reason for complacency. As others have documented, Wikipedia has
its representational blind spots, produced by the nature of its editorial community and their discursive
conventions. Attempts are underway to alter these conventions and create a better representational
balance, but a lack of bibliographical imagination promises to hinder efforts to do so as it leads to the
under-use of a substantial library of material that would help fill representational gaps in ways that
adhere to Wikipedia’s strictures on what constitutes a reliable source. Here I present an extended
example of the Wikipedia article on the Philippine-American War, an important, but often over-looked
conflict, to illustrate the unfortunate effects that accompany a lack of attention to the kind of sources
used to produce narratives for the online encyclopedia. I argue that this lack of attention is a result of a
failure of bibliographical imagination and that it makes Wikipedia’s stated aim to represent all the
world’s knowledge even further removed from reality than ever before.

Note: talks about blind spots in wikipedia
Main Focus: Examining how a “lack of bibliographic imagination” among Wikipedia editors affects representation and knowledge creation on the platform, using the Philippine-American War article as a case study.
Methodology: Qualitative analysis of the Philippine-American War Wikipedia article, its talk page discussions, and the cited sources. The analysis focuses on specific instances of source selection, disputes, and editorial decisions.
Areas of Focus: Illustrating the limitations of a narrow information space among Wikipedia editors, demonstrating how biases affect source evaluation and article content, and advocating for a broader, more critical approach to sourcing.
Key Conclusion: A lack of bibliographic imagination, stemming partly from educational systems’ emphasis on rote learning, leads to a reliance on easily accessible online sources and inadequate evaluation of those sources. This perpetuates biases and limits the scope of knowledge represented on Wikipedia. The author calls for improved information literacy training and a broader understanding of knowledge creation within the Wikipedia community. A more equitable distribution of wealth to higher education is also suggested as a long-term remedy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220434626_Improving_Wikipedia's_accuracy_Is_edit_age_a_solution
Abstract:
This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site’s policy of assuring ver- ifiability through citations. It does so by examining the references and citations of a subset of country histories. The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suf- fer from the choice of references used. Many of these are from only a few US government Websites or news media and few are to academic journal material. Given these results, one response would be to declare Wikipedia unsuitable for serious reference work. But another option emerges when we jettison technological determinism and look at Wikipedia as a product of a wider social con- text. Key to this context is a world in which information is bottled up as commodities requiring payment for access. Equally important is the problematic assumption that texts are undifferentiated bearers of knowledge. Those involved in instructional programs can draw attention to the social nature of texts to counter these assumptions and by so doing create an awareness for a new genera- tion of Wikipedians and Wikipedia users of the need to evaluate texts (and hence citations) in light of the social context of their production and use.
Main Focus: Evaluating how well Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site’s verifiability policy, focusing on references and citations within country history articles.
Methodology: Examining references and citations in a subset of Wikipedia country history articles. The study compares the findings to practices in academic journals and considers wider social contexts influencing Wikipedia’s practices.
Areas of Focus: Assessing the quality and type of references used, the extent of citation usage, and the overall implications for Wikipedia’s credibility. The authors explore challenges related to information access and evaluation in the digital age.
Key Conclusion: Wikipedia history articles suffer from insufficient and unreliable citations, relying heavily on U.S. government websites and news media, while neglecting academic sources. This reflects broader issues like the commodification of information and a lack of critical text evaluation. The authors suggest information literacy initiatives to promote better sourcing practices within the Wikipedia community.

Related to Wikipedia

How and why do college students use Wikipedia? - Lim - 2009
Abstract:
The purposes of this study were to explore college students' perceptions, uses of, and motivations for using Wikipedia, and to understand their information behavior concerning Wikipedia based on social cognitive theory (SCT). A Web survey was used to collect data in the spring of 2008. The study sample consisted of students from an introductory undergraduate course at a large public university in the midwestern United States. A total of 134 students participated in the study, resulting in a 32.8% response rate. The major findings of the study include the following: Approximately one-third of the students reported using Wikipedia for academic purposes. The students tended to use Wikipedia for quickly checking facts and finding background information. They had positive past experiences with Wikipedia; however, interestingly, their perceptions of its information quality were not correspondingly high. The level of their confidence in evaluating Wikipedia's information quality was, at most, moderate. Respondents' past experience with Wikipedia, their positive emotional state, their disposition to believe information in Wikipedia, and information utility were positively related to their outcome expectations of Wikipedia. However, among the factors affecting outcome expectations, only information utility and respondents' positive emotions toward Wikipedia were related to their use of it. Further, when all of the independent variables, including the mediator, outcome expectations, were considered, only the variable information utility was related to Wikipedia use, which may imply a limited applicability of SCT to understanding Wikipedia use. However, more empirical evidence is needed to determine the applicability of this theory to Wikipedia use. Finally, this study supports the knowledge value of Wikipedia (Fallis, 2008), despite students' cautious attitudes toward Wikipedia. The study suggests that educators and librarians need to provide better guidelines for using Wikipedia, rather than prohibiting Wikipedia use altogether.

Main Focus: Exploring college students’ perceptions, usage patterns, and motivations for using Wikipedia, grounded in Social Cognitive Theory (SCT).
Methodology: Quantitative study using a web survey administered to 134 students in an introductory journalism and mass communication course. Uses and Gratifications theory and credibility/trust literature also inform the analysis.
Areas of Focus: Understanding how frequently and for what purposes students use Wikipedia, their perceptions of its information quality, their confidence in evaluating that quality, and the factors influencing their usage.
Key Conclusion: Students frequently use Wikipedia, primarily for quick fact-checking and background information. Despite generally positive past experiences, their perceptions of Wikipedia’s quality are moderate, suggesting a degree of cautiousness. Information utility and positive emotions were the main drivers of Wikipedia use. The findings suggest a limited applicability of SCT in explaining Wikipedia usage in this context. The study emphasizes the need for educators and librarians to provide guidance on Wikipedia use rather than outright prohibition.

Finding social roles in Wikipedia | Proceedings of the 2011 iConference
Abstract:
This paper investigates some of the social roles people play in the online community of Wikipedia. We start from qualitative comments posted on community oriented pages, wiki project memberships, and user talk pages in order to identify a sample of editors who represent four key roles: substantive experts, technical editors, vandal fighters, and social networkers. Patterns in edit histories and egocentric network visualizations suggest potential "structural signatures" that could be used as quantitative indicators of role adoption. Using simple metrics based on edit histories we compare two samples of Wikipedians: a collection of long term dedicated editors, and a cohort of editors from a one month window of new arrivals. According to these metrics, we find that the proportions of editor types in the new cohort are similar those observed in the sample of dedicated contributors. The number of new editors playing helpful roles in a single month's cohort nearly equal the number found in the dedicated sample. This suggests that informal socialization has the potential provide sufficient role related labor despite growth and change in Wikipedia. These results are preliminary, and we describe several ways that the method can be improved, including the expansion and refinement of role signatures and identification of other important social roles.

Main Focus: Identifying and exploring the social roles played by editors in the Wikipedia community, and developing potential quantitative indicators (“structural signatures”) for these roles.
Methodology: Mixed-methods approach. Qualitative analysis of comments on community pages and user talk pages, combined with analysis of edit histories and egocentric network visualizations. Compared two samples of editors: a “dedicated” group of long-term contributors and a “cohort” of new editors.
Areas of Focus: Defining four key roles (substantive experts, technical editors, vandal fighters, and social networkers), analyzing their contribution patterns across different Wikipedia namespaces, and exploring the structure of their local networks within the community.
Key Conclusion: The study identified distinct patterns in edit histories and network positions associated with the four roles. These patterns can potentially be used as quantitative indicators of role adoption. The analysis of the “cohort” sample suggested that informal socialization within Wikipedia is effective in bringing new editors into helpful roles, contributing to the project’s sustainability.

Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance
Abstract:
How does "self-governance" happen in Wikipedia? Through in-depth interviews with 20 individuals who have held a variety of responsibilities in the English-language Wikipedia, we obtained rich descriptions of how various forces produce and regulate social structures on the site. Although Wikipedia is sometimes portrayed as lacking oversight, our analysis describes Wikipedia as an organization with highly refined policies, norms, and a technological architecture that supports organizational ideals of consensus building and discussion. We describe how governance on the site is becoming increasingly decentralized as the community grows and how this is predicted by theories of commons-based governance developed in offline contexts. We also briefly examine local governance structures called WikiProjects through the example of WikiProject Military History, one of the oldest and most prolific projects on the site.

Main Focus: Investigating how “self-governance” operates within Wikipedia, focusing on the decentralization of governance processes.
Methodology: Qualitative study based on in-depth interviews with 20 individuals holding various roles and responsibilities within the English-language Wikipedia. Analysis is informed by Ostrom’s principles of self-organizing communities. The authors also examine a specific WikiProject (Military History) to explore local governance.
Areas of Focus: Analyzing how policies are created, changed, interpreted, and enforced on Wikipedia; examining the emergence and function of WikiProjects; understanding how decentralization occurs as the community grows and relates to the challenge of scaling governance.
Key Conclusion: Wikipedia’s governance has become increasingly decentralized over time. While often portrayed as anarchic, Wikipedia has a refined system of policies, norms, and architecture supporting consensus-building. WikiProjects facilitate this decentralization by acting as local jurisdictions for content creation and style guidelines. The study also suggests that some tensions arise from the interplay between centralized policies (e.g., on harmful behavior) and the community’s desire for autonomy.
Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource
Main Focus: Examining Wikipedia’s growth and assessing its credibility as a news resource, focusing on the technologies and policies that contribute to its success. Also analyzing trends in how Wikipedia is cited by news media.
Methodology: Quantitative analysis of Wikipedia’s growth metrics (number of articles, edits, contributors), combined with qualitative analysis of community policies and technical features. The study uses a benchmark set of encyclopedia topics to compare Wikipedia’s coverage and quality. It also analyzes a dataset of Wikipedia articles cited by news media.
Areas of Focus: Understanding the wiki concept and its role in collaborative content creation; identifying the factors driving Wikipedia’s rapid growth; developing metrics for evaluating article quality (rigor and diversity); analyzing trends in how Wikipedia is used as a source by news outlets.
Key Conclusion: The study found a correlation between Wikipedia’s increasing popularity and its use as a secondary source in news. The analysis suggests that articles cited in the press tend to improve in quality after being cited. The author proposes further research on content analysis, vandalism detection, and refined citation tracking to better understand the dynamics of Wikipedia as a news resource.
How much is Wikipedia Lagging Behind News? | Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference
Main Focus: Studying the flow of entity and event information from online news (specifically, The New York Times) to Wikipedia to analyze the time lag in Wikipedia’s coverage of newsworthy items.
Methodology: Quantitative analysis comparing the first appearance of entities and events in Wikipedia (using the English Wikipedia revision history) and The New York Times (NYT) from 2001-2007. The study uses the YAGO2 ontology for entity categorization and DBpedia for identifying event pages and their creation times. TagMe! was used for entity linking between the two sources.
Areas of Focus: Quantifying the proportion of news articles among Wikipedia’s external references; analyzing the distribution and evolution of “entity lag” (the time difference between an entity’s appearance in the NYT and Wikipedia); examining the role of events in driving the creation of new entity pages (“emergent entities”).
Key Conclusion: Approximately 20% of external references in Wikipedia entity pages are news articles, indicating the importance of news for Wikipedia content. Entity lag follows a normal distribution, suggesting Wikipedia is generally catching up to news coverage over time. Events, however, are reflected quickly in Wikipedia, with a low lag. The study also found that events trigger the creation of new entities, with approximately 12% of entities mentioned on event pages being created after the event page itself.
Assistant: Here's a 400-word literature review synthesizing these sources and addressing the key questions:

Literature Review

The academic discourse surrounding Wikipedia centers on three key debates: credibility and citation practices, representation gaps, and governance structures. These debates reflect broader concerns about knowledge production and accessibility in the digital age.

The first major debate concerns Wikipedia's reliability and citation practices. Research [1] reveals significant issues with verifiability in Wikipedia articles, showing heavy reliance on U.S. government websites and news media, with limited academic sources. This "lack of bibliographic imagination" [3] perpetuates knowledge gaps and raises questions about Wikipedia's suitability for serious reference work. However, some scholars argue that rather than dismissing Wikipedia, attention should focus on improving information literacy and source evaluation [1,4].

The second key debate addresses representation gaps and systemic biases. Studies of geographical coverage [2] demonstrate that WikiProjects, intended to address these gaps, often fail due to lack of sustained leadership and broader socio-economic constraints. This connects to deeper questions about "who gets to represent whom" [2,3]. The challenge of representation is complicated by what [3] describes as "blind spots" produced by the editorial community's composition and discursive conventions.

The third debate focuses on Wikipedia's governance structures and their effectiveness. Research shows an increasingly decentralized governance model [6], with refined policies and norms supporting consensus-building. However, this creates tension between central policies and community autonomy. Studies of editor roles [5] suggest that informal socialization effectively maintains necessary labor distribution, though questions remain about long-term sustainability.

These debates intersect in discussions of Wikipedia's role in current events coverage. Research shows Wikipedia increasingly serves as a news resource [7,8], with varying time lags in covering different types of events. This raises questions about the platform's ability to maintain quality while keeping pace with news cycles.

My research on Wikipedia's "In the news" section directly engages with these debates by examining how editorial decisions reflect and potentially perpetuate representation biases. While previous studies have focused on static content analysis or broad governance patterns, this research uniquely investigates the real-time decision-making processes that shape Wikipedia's current events coverage. This addresses a gap in understanding how Wikipedia's editorial practices influence global event representation and how existing biases manifest in immediate content decisions.

[Note: I've used numbers to reference your sources as requested. The review synthesizes the key themes while positioning your research within existing debates.]
User: thank you! for my research purpose part, can you continue this by 50-ish words, and also propose some points for improvement?

Wikipedia is a vast, rambling "universe" of information and knowledge. It is also a key element of our information infrastructure today. By examining the criteria it uses to select newsworthy events and the discussions surrounding these choices, I aim to uncover underlying patterns that reveal how certain events are prioritized over others, thus reflecting broader societal values and biases in the online information system. This helps us to understand Wikipedia as a social and cultural phenomenon.

Much research has been conducted on the neutrality of Wikipedia. However, I note that none of them focus specifically on the “In the news” section, found on the Wikipedia home page. This section is particularly unique because it is updated daily and describes current events, and as such provides key insights into Wikipedia’s role as a news curator. In my research, I wish to use this section to examine real-time decision-making processes rather than just static content.
Assistant: Here's a 50-word addition to strengthen your research purpose, followed by suggested improvements:

Addition:
Furthermore, by focusing on the "In the news" section's editorial discussions, this research will provide actionable insights for Wikipedia's governance policies and contribute to broader discussions about digital democracy and information equity. The findings could inform strategies for more balanced representation of global events and help develop better guidelines for news curation.

Suggested Improvements:

1. **Specify Methodology More Clearly**
- Add concrete details about how you'll analyze the editorial discussions
- Include timeframe for data collection
- Mention specific tools or frameworks you'll use

2. **Strengthen Theoretical Framework**
- Connect more explicitly to theories of digital democracy
- Reference specific concepts from media studies or information science

3. **Expand Practical Applications**
- Detail how findings could be implemented by Wikipedia editors
- Discuss potential policy recommendations
- Address how other platforms might benefit from the research

4. **Clarify Scope**
- Specify whether you're focusing solely on English Wikipedia
- Define what constitutes a "current event"
- Address potential limitations

5. **Add Comparative Element**
- Consider comparing ITN with similar sections on other platforms
- Include historical comparison of ITN coverage over time

These improvements would make your research purpose more robust and actionable.
User: next, i need to do a personal statement. first is "Explain why you would like to participate in the programme." (max 300 words)

please do not use too complicated language. write in a human style.

can you outline it first in bullet points and i propose changes before you write?
Assistant: Here's a suggested outline for your personal statement focusing on why you want to participate in the program:

1. Opening Hook
- Personal connection to Wikipedia/digital knowledge platforms
- Brief mention of a specific experience that sparked interest

2. Academic Journey & Development
- How previous studies led to interest in this research area
- Specific skills/knowledge gained that prepare you for this program

3. Research Interest Motivation
- Why Wikipedia's "In the news" section specifically interests you
- Connection to broader interests in digital democracy/information equity
- Real-world relevance of this research

4. Program-Specific Appeal
- What attracts you to this particular program
- Specific aspects of the program that align with your goals
- Unique opportunities offered by the institution

5. Future Vision
- How this program fits into your career/academic goals
- Potential contribution to the field
- Long-term aspirations

6. Personal Qualities & Fit
- What you bring to the program
- How your background/perspective adds value
- Why you're the right candidate

7. Closing
- Reinforce enthusiasm for the program
- Brief summary of main points
- Forward-looking statement

Would you like to modify any of these points before I draft the statement? Feel free to add specific experiences or aspects you'd like to emphasize, or remove points that don't resonate with your story.
User: um so skip 2. 
and remove "Real-world relevance of this research"
for 4, let me give some context:
the program is called HSSRP. I will get to collaborate and be mentored by an expert-mentor. the expert-mentor also specialises in analysis of wikipedia, so i have a lot to learn

Assistant: Thanks for the context! Here's the revised outline:

1. Opening Hook
- Personal connection to Wikipedia/digital knowledge platforms
- Brief mention of a specific experience that sparked interest

2. Research Interest Motivation
- Why Wikipedia's "In the news" section specifically interests you
- Connection to broader interests in digital democracy/information equity

3. Program-Specific Appeal (HSSRP Focus)
- Excitement about mentor collaboration opportunity
- Specific interest in working with an expert in Wikipedia analysis
- Value of learning from someone with direct expertise in your research area
- Opportunity for guided research experience

4. Future Vision
- How this research experience will shape your understanding
- Potential contribution to Wikipedia studies
- Long-term aspirations in digital knowledge research

5. Personal Qualities & Fit
- Your genuine curiosity about Wikipedia's role in society
- How your fresh perspective could contribute
- Enthusiasm for collaborative research

6. Closing
- Reinforce enthusiasm for the mentorship opportunity
- Looking forward to contributing to Wikipedia research
- Brief forward-looking statement

Would you like me to modify anything in this outline before I draft the statement? For example, we could:
- Add more emphasis on the mentorship aspect
- Include specific aspects of Wikipedia that fascinate you
- Adjust the balance between personal interest and program benefits
User: yes sure, thank you.
Assistant: Would you like me to proceed with writing the full personal statement based on this outline now? 

Before I do, I just want to check if you have any specific points you'd like me to:
1. Emphasize more
2. Add
3. Remove
4. Modify

Also, it would help if you could share:
1. Any specific experience with Wikipedia that sparked your interest (for the opening)
2. Any particular aspects of Wikipedia's news curation that fascinate you
3. What you hope to learn specifically from the mentor

This will help make the statement more personal and authentic to your experience.
User: sure! specific experience - uh more like "i saw smth smth and wondered why this was featured much less than others" - i dont rlly know, feel free to make up any anecdote thats relatable. particular aspect - its open nature, anyone can contribute - how is order maintained? and wouldnt that affect the accuracy of news?
Assistant: Thanks for sharing! I understand better now - you're interested in the democratic nature of Wikipedia and how it maintains quality despite being open-source, particularly in news reporting. Let me propose a more specific opening and research interest section before writing the full statement:

Opening Hook & Research Interest (refined):
- Start with a relatable moment: noticing how some major events get different levels of coverage on Wikipedia's "In the news"
- Natural questions that followed: Who decides what's newsworthy? How does a platform that anyone can edit maintain reliability in news reporting?
- Connection to broader curiosity about digital democracy: balancing openness with accuracy
- Interest in understanding the community dynamics and editorial processes behind Wikipedia's news curation

Would you like me to proceed with writing the full statement with this angle? It would focus on:
1. Your genuine curiosity about Wikipedia's collaborative nature
2. The fascinating tension between open participation and quality control
3. How HSSRP and mentor guidance would help you explore these questions
4. Your enthusiasm for learning about Wikipedia's community dynamics

Does this direction feel right to you?
User: yes sure. thank you!

but please note this also: the personal statement is more on "Explain why you would like to participate in the programme." so its more about my interest in social sciences - the wikipedia thing should come later and be more concise. can you propose a new outline
Assistant: Ah, I understand now! Here's a refocused outline that emphasizes your interest in the HSSRP program and social sciences first:

1. Opening Hook
- Personal connection to social sciences research
- What draws you to studying human behavior and social phenomena
- Brief moment that sparked your interest in research

2. Why HSSRP
- Excitement about getting real research experience
- Value of structured mentorship in developing research skills
- Opportunity to learn proper research methodology
- Appeal of working in an academic environment

3. Research Interest (Wikipedia project)
- Natural progression of your interest in how digital platforms shape society
- Brief explanation of Wikipedia research interest (open collaboration, news curation)
- How this specific project aligns with your broader interest in social sciences

4. Learning from Mentorship
- Enthusiasm about working with an expert in Wikipedia analysis
- Specific skills you hope to develop
- Value of guided research experience

5. Personal Qualities & Future Vision
- Your curiosity and eagerness to learn
- How this experience will shape your academic journey
- What you hope to contribute

Would you like me to write the full statement with this revised focus? Also, could you share:
1. What specifically interests you about social sciences?
2. Any particular experience that drew you to research?

This will help make the statement more authentic to your interests.
User: yes, but note that the first part can be more strongly connected to the 2nd part - after all wikipedia _is_ a perfect representation of social sciences!
Assistant: Ah, excellent point! Let me revise the outline to create a more cohesive narrative that naturally flows from social sciences to Wikipedia as a fascinating case study:

1. Opening Hook & Social Sciences Interest
- Personal fascination with how people interact, organize, and create meaning together
- Interest in how digital platforms have transformed social behavior and community building
- Social sciences as key to understanding modern collective human behavior

2. Why HSSRP
- Desire to move from theoretical understanding to hands-on research
- Value of structured mentorship in developing research skills
- Perfect opportunity to study real-world social phenomena

3. Wikipedia as Ideal Case Study
- Natural bridge: Wikipedia as perfect embodiment of social science concepts
- Represents fascinating intersection of:
  * Community organization
  * Collective knowledge creation
  * Digital democracy
  * Social norms and governance

4. Learning Goals & Mentorship
- Excitement about learning proper research methodology
- Value of expert guidance in analyzing complex social systems
- Specific skills you hope to develop

5. Future Vision
- How this experience will contribute to your understanding of social sciences
- Enthusiasm for contributing to knowledge about digital communities

Would you like me to write the full statement with this more integrated approach? The narrative would flow naturally from broader social science interests to Wikipedia as a compelling example of these principles in action.
User: yes please! write it please. max 300 words remember
Assistant: Here's a draft of your personal statement (~300 words):

My fascination with social sciences stems from observing how humans create meaning and order through collective action. In our increasingly digital world, I'm particularly intrigued by how online platforms have transformed the way communities organize, collaborate, and establish shared norms - fundamentally changing how we understand social behavior.

The HSSRP would allow me to explore these interests through structured research. While classroom learning has given me theoretical foundations, I'm eager to develop practical research skills under expert mentorship. The program's emphasis on proper methodology and analytical thinking would be invaluable in helping me understand complex social phenomena more rigorously.

Wikipedia presents a perfect case study of modern social organization. As the world's largest collaborative knowledge platform, it embodies core social science concepts: How do strangers coordinate to create reliable information? How are community standards established and maintained? I'm particularly interested in exploring how Wikipedia maintains quality in its news coverage despite being open-source. This intersection of digital democracy and information accuracy raises fascinating questions about collective governance and social norms.

Under HSSRP mentorship, I hope to learn systematic approaches to studying such questions. Understanding how to design research frameworks, collect meaningful data, and draw evidence-based conclusions would be crucial skills for my academic development. The opportunity to work alongside experienced researchers would also provide invaluable insights into academic research culture.

This experience would deepen my understanding of how digital platforms shape modern society, while building foundational research capabilities. I'm excited about contributing to our knowledge of online communities and collaborative systems, viewing the HSSRP as an ideal stepping stone toward meaningful social science research.

[Note: Feel free to modify this to better match your voice and specific interests!]
User: thank you! can the last part be improved? it sounds too GPT like
Assistant: Here's a more natural and personalized version of the final paragraph:

[Previous paragraphs remain the same, then:]

This opportunity would allow me to combine my passion for understanding online communities with hands-on research experience. I'm genuinely excited about diving deep into Wikipedia's collaborative dynamics, and I believe the HSSRP's structured environment is exactly what I need to turn my curiosity into meaningful research. Working on this project would be more than just an academic exercise - it's a chance to understand how millions of people come together to share knowledge in ways that were impossible just decades ago.

[This version sounds more authentic and enthusiastic, avoiding formal phrases like "contributing to our knowledge" or "foundational research capabilities." Let me know if you'd like to adjust it further to better match your voice!]
User: thank you so much! now, I am working on "Research Experience, if applicable (Briefly describe the project and highlight key learnings from doing the project. Max: 200 words)".

let me tell you about my research - throughout this year, I worked on a chemistry project, together with two of my peers, in the Da Vinci programme by our school.  we were studying properties of different materials. 

it was my first real research experience and we went through all the steps of a meaningful research: we first read up a whole lot about existing knowledge. we think of our research question and formulate hypothesis. then we perform experiments. in the end I co-authored our papers.

it was very fruitful blah blah blah
Assistant: