Slashdot Mirror
Infrequent Anonymous Cowards Reliable on Wikipedia
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."
Look at it another way... registered users who are "experts" are no better than the riff-raff.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
This is to be expected. A lot of people read wikipedia to look up stuff and learn and all that. They never really wanted to edit it though cuz they're lazu. And then when they look up a topic near and dear to their heart like a specific video game or show and find something incorrect or totally lacking and just can't bear to not do something about it. But that's as far as the motivation takes them. I'd assume the majority of editors are like that. Who has like hours and hours to write really good articles all the time?
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I don't think that this is really all that surprising, people that just do one or two edits aren't typically doing it because the have an investment, they are generally doing it because they found an error.
Some presumably do deface the pages, but I don't find it terribly surprising that somebody that primarily uses wikipedia would be more reliable than somebody that spends most of their time building a reputation. There's just so much more incentive to fix it if you are using it. That isn't to say that named contributers are inherently bad.
Although I realize that certain value can be placed on statements depending on their sources I still believe all statements should be scrutinized and should have to stand on their on for validity and worth. When posting here I often add links to show where my information comes from to support my opinions/facts. Nothing special in my background such as higher degees or notable accomplishments to add any credence to a name even if I used one. Though even I find myself giving more credence to statements made by certain nicknames here and particularly when they make comments in areas where I have seen them comment in previous articles, however I have no desire to build my own "karma". Even though I have had many +5s over the years I also have some that rotted at 0 or -1 that on re-examination I not only agreed with the modding but thought "sheesh, what was I thinking" and "glad that isn't permanently linked to me".
Having met many people in this world with extensive knowledge in areas that interested them though that knowledge was completely unrelated to their jobs or specific educational backgrounds, some of which had no desire for the whole world to know they had this knowledge, it doesn't suprise me that someone like them might be involved in Wikipedia. Further, it wouldn't suprise me much if some college professors of note don't spot something at Wikipedia that makes them think "I have to fix this" and then proceeds about doing so in an anonymous fashion either to avoid comments from others in their profession on them having supplied information there, avoid conflict of interests related to their university contracts, or just simply to avoid being asked to contribute more.
Information wants to be free and so does the truth. Like OSS, Wikipedia operates in part on the theory of thousands of eyes and counts on errors being spotted by the owners of some of those eyes. Position in society, even supported by educational and work background positioning, does not always indicate the truth of their statements. No where is this more apparent then in politically related "truths". One could say that at no time is someone more free to tell the truth then when providing their words anonymously. Unfortunately the converse is true as well.
1. Look at the edit summary 2. Find the name of the bot that reverted you & click it 3. Find the user who runs the but and go to his page 4. Talk with him. You're way too angry for way too little reason. I'd understand if you got angrty if someone shot your or something, but getting angry over a minor misunderstanding is ... a bit much.
And the humor of your sig saying you don't read ACs! They aren't all about First Post you know.