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'.
I think that the experts may be biased because when they read an article, they know enough to disregard small defects, the average user does not.
In short, I'm asserting that an expert requires less accuracy in their documents than nonexperts because their own expertise can fill in the spaces.
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
I hear the population of elephants has tripled in the past 6 months.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Is it just me, or is this thread so far composed almost entirely of people who, while perhaps lacking any credentials or experience when it comes to hypothesis testing and experimental design, nonetheless feel they are informed enough to critique the experimental technique?
NAZI!!!