Slashdot Mirror
Experts Rate Wikipedia Higher Than Non-Experts
Grooves writes "A new Wikipedia study suggests that when experts and non-experts look to assess Wikipedia for accuracy, the non-experts are harder on the free encyclopedia than the experts. The researcher had 55 graduate students and research assistants examine one Wikipedia article apiece for accuracy, some in fields they were familiar with and some not. Those in the expert group ranked their articles as generally credible, higher than those evaluated by the non-experts. One researcher said 'It may be the case that non-experts are more cynical about information outside of their field and the difference comes from a natural reaction to rate unfamiliar articles as being less credible.'" That's the problem people face when 'everyone who disagrees with you is a moron'.
Um, I don't think being a Biology Ph.D. candidate makes one an expert at astronomy. If you try to pull that stunt in court as an expert witness, the judge won't like it.
A better description would be "smart, educated people" easier on Wikipedia than less smart, less educated people.
Even then I'd say "further study is needed."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
People are spoonfed by the media to believe what the media wants them to belileve ...
...
If you argue that evidence of Global Warming only proves a short term warming trend and that it is inconclusive whether it is influence by man or if it represents a long term climate change people will call you delusional even though you are correct
55 articles is not a statistically significant sample size. One article, even two articles, each is not enough to develop a valid opinion.
A better way would be to have the 55 people read 5 articles on subjects they are familiar with and 5 articles on subjects they are unfamiliar with, then have the people rate the subjective veracity of the articles, then have them look up the same 10 subjects in 2 different conventional sources, and finaly have them re-rate the wikipedia articles for veracity.
This article is effectively useless as it mearly give the opinions of 55 people and nothing more.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.