Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Infrequent Anonymous Cowards Reliable on Wikipedia

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the a-visit-from-the-correction-fairy dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Researchers at Dartmouth University have recently discovered that infrequent anonymous contributors, so called "Good Samaritans," are as reliable as registered users who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain. A graph from page 31 of the group's original paper (pdf file) shows that the quality of contributions of anonymous users goes down as the number of edits increases while quality goes up with the number of edits for registered users."

16 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    RESPECT ME!

    1. Re:ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Shit, I'm talking to myself again.

  2. I read it on wikipedia by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Researchers at Dartmouth University have recently discovered that infrequent anonymous contributors, so called "Good Samaritans," are as reliable as registered users who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain.

    Even better, the number of these "Good Samaritans" has tripled in the last six months!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  3. Depends, by Fengpost · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just don't cite wikipedia as a reliable source of the elephant population.

    --
    The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
  4. True on slashdot too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which is why I should be allowed to accrue karma.

  5. Re:well duh by nomadic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who has like hours and hours to write really good articles all the time?

    I was going to agree with you, then I noticed I've broken the 5,000 post mark on Slashdot. So apparently I do have the time and can't make fun of the wikipedians.

  6. Re:... and more reliable than Slashdot summaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The summary has been amended. You're welcome.

  7. Oyu? by benhocking · · Score: 4, Funny

    It took me a while to figure out what y'all were talking about, but luckily, Wikipedia knew.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  8. Re:well duh by Firehed · · Score: 3, Funny

    The giving-geeks-a-bad-name mom's-basement-dwelling sociopaths who adopt obscure TV series, comic book characters, or musicians and then write and champion the articles about their outre darlings.


    Digg users? Come on now, that's just being unfair. They have no "darlings" in any sense of the word.
    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  9. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sweet, sweet recognition.

  10. Re:well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "We don't want to edit it because we are *adults* with lives and jobs and families and deadlines" ... AND PLENTY OF TIME TO POST TO FUCKING SLASHDOT. You lazy bastard.

  11. Re:Not news by Whiteox · · Score: 5, Funny

    (By the way, in US english, commas and periods should ALWAYS go inside the quotes.) * Citation Required

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  12. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Regarding the placement of commas, periods and quotes, I just had to share this. http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/Its-a-Different-Set-of-Rules.aspx

  13. Re:Not news by Stormie · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've only made a few (3 or 4) edits to articles, always to fix minor typos or spelling errors I've seen while reading. Every time I have done so, it has been rolled back within minutes

    [citation needed]

  14. first reply! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    for the homiez in the gnaa!

  15. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    More to the point:

    I am smarter then you (but you knew that).


    Yech.