I'll confess to frustration that these are behind a paywall. I'll have to dig to see if GMU gives me access but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt Send me an email and I can help. I don't have access to those repositories, either; I had to request a review copy of my article from a university colleague. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast to the other social media sites, I note that Wikipedia does not allow its users to comment on content; hence there is little room for this alternative form of modification." Am I misreading it, or is the author totally clueless? If so, we should not hesitate to say so in the review (in a more polite form, as in "the author seems to display a near total lack of understanding of Wikipedia basics"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The finding that students consider Wikipedia to be useful (despite a certain lack of reliability) is encouraging. Further research in that area may be beneficial. For example, would it be possible to gather data on page hits from school-based IPs at different levels of student attainment (high school, college, graduate, &c.)? Praemonitus (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Over four fifths of the links in Wikipedia are to male persons, which roughly reflects the gender distribution of Wikipedia biographies", I very much doubt that, could the meaning have been intended to be "Over four fifths of the biographies linked to in Wikipedia are of male persons, which roughly reflects the gender distribution of Wikipedia biographies"? I'm sure the links to articles other than biographies are a significant proportion of links. ϢereSpielChequers 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
