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'.
that just by being a grad-student or a research assistant you become labeled an expert!
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
Of all of the historical things you could used as an example, you choose Nazism. If you didn't have such a good point I might have called Godwin's law on you.
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
As a non-expert in both Nazism and Godwin's Law, I'm highly sceptical of that article.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Ironically, the Nazi's observed no such rule. In the educated social circles of the Third Reich, anybody who used the term Godwin in any sense was immediately set upon by rabid guard dogs.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!