MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387092025 · doi:10.54590/pop.2023.008

Media Art on Wikipedia: Leveraging the Wikimedia Ecosystem to Address the Challenges and Opportunities of Media Art Institutions

2023· article· en· W4387092025 on OpenAlex
Stefan Glowacki

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePop! Public Open Participatory · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizen journalismAffordanceMetadataGeneral partnershipContext (archaeology)Digital mediaSocial mediaDocumentationWorld Wide WebSociologyEthosDigital curationPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Media Art on Wikipedia” is a collaborative project launched by Amsterdam-based platform for media art LIMA (Living Media Art), conducted in partnership with national and international art collections, national universities, and Wikimedia Nederland. Involving coordination of edit-a-thons and ingest of collection metadata within the structure of Wikidata, the project aims to bridge and mobilize the domain knowledge of media art beyond the institutional silo through engagement with the ethos, procedures and affordances of the Wikimedia ecosystem. This article profiles and situates this attempt within the particular institutional context of media art and the broader turn towards open, participatory, and distributed configuration of public institutions. Comparing infrastructural topologies identified within the discourse of media art by mapping them to tensions between centralized and distributed approaches, this article positions the project as a composite of models blurring their unambiguous theoretical distinction. This analysis serves to investigate ways in which the project responds to the conditions underlying the field’s modes of knowledge production—on one hand the demand for the reimagining of methods of documentation, preservation, and historicization stemming from the specificity of media art; and the systemic precarity of media art’s knowledge infrastructures on the other.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.494
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.068 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it