Slashdot Mirror


The Curious Case of Increasing Misspelling Rates On Wikipedia

An anonymous reader writes "The crowd-sourced nature of Wikipedia might imply that its content should be more 'correct' than other sources. As the saying goes, the more eyes the better. One particular student who was curious about this conducted rudimentary text mining on a sampling of the Wikipedia corpus to discover how misspelling rates on Wikipedia change through time. The results appear to indicate an increasing rate of misspellings through time. The author proposes that this consistent increase is the result of Wikipedia contributors using more complex language, which the test is unable to cope with. How do the results of this test compare to your own observations on the detail accuracy of massively crowd-sourced applications?"

2 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Spellink chekers. Duh! by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

    But written Australian English is different from North American English.

    In N.A. things are similar TO each other or they are different FROM each other.

    We would no more say Different TO than we would say Similar FROM. Just seems wrong to our ears.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  2. Muphry's Law by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    icebike is a victim of Muphry's Law.