Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia-Sponsored Pilot Study Lauds Wikipedia Accuracy
netbuzz writes "The Wikimedia Foundation today is releasing the results of a 'pilot study' it commissioned last year to assess the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia in such a way that it would provide a methodology blueprint for others do more thorough reviews of online encyclopedias. The results are in, and despite ready acknowledgment of the small sample size and paragraphs worth of other caveats, the parents of Wikipedia can't help but note that its baby was judged to have outperformed other online encyclopedias, including Encyclopedia Britannica, in three different languages. Britannica, which disputed the Wikipedia-friendly results of a much-cited Fortune comparison report back in 2005, has yet to offer a reply to this one."
In before 'citation needed'!
And water wet.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I bet it has a big old ugly picture of Jimmy Wales across the top.
The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
The quality and accuracy of some articles is great. I would think that most "core" subjects that get a lot of viewers will tend to be of high quality. However look at the entry for so meting obscure, like the town I live in, and you might find something strange. At times there have been mistakes, now corrected - but there is still an odd balance. There is a lot of detail on railway lines that used to go to the station, and what destinations you could reach from the trains.There is a lack of detail on the current geography and economy. Things are driven by people's interests.
* According to a study sponsored by the tabacco industry.
Unfortunately the study has been deemed Not Noteworthy by one of Wikipedia's editors and been removed.
If Wikipedia did this study and kept the results to themselves there would be criticisms regarding transparency. Parties who have a self-interest in damaging Wikipedia would have new ammunition.
Very variable in accuracy.
A few geek-related pages where I have intimate knowledge of the reality, quite often the Wikipedia page is way, way, way off.
And of course if you make an edit, saying "I WAS THERE, I SPENT 3 YEARS working with that thingy, I HAVE SIX OF THEM IN MY ATTIC", your edit gets removed within an hour, time and again.
Sigh.
The quality and accuracy of some articles is great. I would think that most "core" subjects that get a lot of viewers will tend to be of high quality. However look at the entry for so meting obscure, like the town I live in, and you might find something strange. At times there have been mistakes, now corrected - but there is still an odd balance. There is a lot of detail on railway lines that used to go to the station, and what destinations you could reach from the trains.There is a lack of detail on the current geography and economy. Things are driven by people's interests.
Also, any subject (such as, say, Presidential candidates) that is/can be politicized is likely to be suspect
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
found that cigarettes do not cause cancer. Additionally, smoking cigarettes has the following benefits, probably demonstrated by Tobacco research:
They increase your coolness factor by 5 points.
They increase your expected annual salary by 15%
They increase the likelihood that you will get laid on any given night by 23%
They decrease the risk of looking like an idiot, since nobody standing around smoking a cigarette can look like an idiot.
They cause weight gain or weight loss, depending on whether you want to gain or lose.
They cure the common cold, reduce flu symptoms to 1 day, and potentially cure cancer (we're still checking on that one).
They inhibit the AIDS virus, no seriously.
They also increase lung capacity, so if you want to be an Olympic athlete, you should smoke cigarettes!
In all seriousness, what self-funded studies that find negative things are actually published? You should expect that a headline saying "X funded self study Y" where X is some business that is commonly cited to have some problem and Y is some contention to that commonly held problem. I'm citing this as jMerliN's law of headlines.
This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed.
...Wikipedia is a hear-say site and this is established by their own policy that limits their liability. In other words: Wikipedia only allows what can be found already published. This was further exposed when through trickery an entry was made that did not yet have other published but upon wikipedia publishing the other made a reference to wikipedia and then the wikipedia article was edited to point to that article as a reference.... And it was found out and the article removed. I don't recall what article that was.
I'm going to commission a study to find out why I am so awesome...
I will keep you posted with the results.
Yeah, I would say that on articles that have attracted enough attention to have multiple knowledgeable editors, quality is quite good. Exceptions for some rough spots in very hot-button areas, like Israel-Palestine, where sometimes editors with the wrong motives are attracted.
What I like compared to Britannica is that it's less likely there will be a whopper of an omission in a high-profile article. Some Britannica articles, especially on science/math topics, just have really puzzling stuff missing, or stated incorrectly, while those tend to get found on Wikipedia.
Of course, they're a bit biased with their list, but a few smug Wikipedians actually maintain a list of Britannica errors that Wikipedia has fixed.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Unfortunatley, the requirements to become an admin is so high that Wikipedia is running out of admins and that the admins that remian tend to be very rude and anti social. I left Wikipedia because admins like to think they are TSA employees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_megadrive
This redirects to Sega Genesis, even though it was only known as this in North America.
However, a vote took place on what to call it and as a result of this vote, it's referred to as the Genesis, which is wrong.
It crap like this that makes me wonder what other facts have been altered.
Summation 2
Yes, some articles and some languages are great.
Others are really atrocious.
For example, a few weeks ago we wondered about the requirements coming from our Indian sales force and google translated the suspiciously short Hindi wikipedia entries...
Take your anti-semitic poison and shove it up your arse.
Wikipedia is an undead project, it's finished. The vast majority of the writing was done 5+ years ago, and almost everything since has largely been touch-ups, edit warring, adding citations, and enforcing "consensus". The long-tail of ~uninteresting~ articles are almost entirely unmaintained, you can pretty much go in and write whatever you want and nobody will ever touch it.
The foundation knows the project is dying, but they rake in so much dough they need to keep appearances up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I always have wonderful experiences using Wikipedia for information. I sometimes even survive without major injury!
Pnårp's docile & perfunctory page!
Here's an example of a Wikipedia fail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
Now, could you please explain to me why the article has this level of detail about his high school years:
At Cranbrook, Romney was a manager for the ice hockey team and a member of the pep squad,[19] and during his final year joined the cross country running team.[15] He belonged to eleven school organizations and school clubs, and started the Blue Key Club booster group.[19] During his final year at Cranbook, he improved academically, but was still not a star pupil.[18][20] He won an award for those "whose contributions to school life are often not fully recognized through already existing channels".[20] Romney was involved in many pranks.
In March of his senior year, he began dating Ann Davies; she attended the private Kingswood School, the sister school to Cranbrook.[20][26] The two informally agreed to marriage around the time of his June 1965 graduation.[18]
But does not mention once the fact that five different witnesses have come forward saying he brutally bullied a kid in high school by cutting off his hair.
Can you say Wikipedia fail?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Precisely - outside of geek culture, pop culture, and the sciences... Wikipedia has some pretty severe quality problems.
Not to mention the traditional Slashdot lament "who is surprised that a study sponsored by Wikipedia finds Wikipedia is accurate?".
Microsoft-sponsored study shows Windows has lowest TCO of all operating systems EVARRRRRRR
People aren't mad over Wikipedia's overall accuracy level, which I'm sure is fantastic. They're mad that they can edit any single specific thing to say whatever they want. I don't care if Wikipedia is 99.999999% accurate if I can hit edit and say Barack Obama was born on Mars. It's importance of information combined with ease of editing it that makes Wikipedia lose all respect.
Dear sir, are you fucking serious?
In case you have not already been informed, jews were the last thing that you and your ilk blamed all of your problems on. As there are many fewer jews now and you evidently still have the same amount of problems, I would have to therefore assume that your problems are unrelated to jews or any other religious sect, and therefore self made, rather than caused by another party. I would further like to say that I would not use the same words as you to describe the motivations of even a savage crocodile, much less another human being.
In order to charitably appeal to your intellect, I will say perhaps the traits you are so desperate to ascribe to jews are in fact traits of all mankind, that it so dearly would like to hide, and that perhaps simply mankind itself is its own worst enemy, in the absence of any other. Only the likes of you could believe that everything would be completely fine if it werent for those 'pesky kids.'
In summary, go and choke on a dick you shit stirring pseudo intellectual prick, the words that spew from your mouth are a waste of fresh air that none alive wish to hear aside from your own pathetic self.
The quality and accuracy of some articles is great. I would think that most "core" subjects that get a lot of viewers will tend to be of high quality. However look at the entry for so meting obscure, like the town I live in, and you might find something strange. At times there have been mistakes, now corrected - but there is still an odd balance. There is a lot of detail on railway lines that used to go to the station, and what destinations you could reach from the trains.There is a lack of detail on the current geography and economy. Things are driven by people's interests.
In a conventional encyclopedia your town, along with a lot of other obscure or minor items, wouldn't be mentioned at all.
In a recent study published by me, 10 out of 10 women find me extremely attractive. Opponents of the study (such as Steve, my roommate) have been dismissed by the study as "highly biased and exceedingly jealous." Furthermore, it was found that "haters be hatin'."
Encyclopedia Britannica, is that you?
Simple Wikipedia for Simpletons
That is the key
Popular topics are better than Britannica because of the many eyes business
Less popular topics are better than Britannica because Britannica has no article.
All I can say is that I'm still feeling a little guilty about uploading an article about Sgt. Pat McGroyne, who led the charge at the Battle of the Bulge.