Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia-Sponsored Pilot Study Lauds Wikipedia Accuracy

Posted by samzenpus on from the accuracy-and-truthiness dept.

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."

4 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. The quality and accuracy of some articles is great by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:The quality and accuracy of some articles is gr by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  3. Re:Very variable. by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    That's what they should do, though! Wikipedia isn't a place to publish your own personal knowledge, but a place to publish information that can be cited, ideally to peer-reviewed articles or books. Half the point of a Wikipedia article is being able to look up the references for further reading, and citation where [3] resolves to "[3] Personal experience of Wikipedia user Ancient_Hacker" just isn't very helpful for that.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  4. Re:This is interesting because... by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a Wikipedia meta-page on that last problem you mention, which they call "fact laundering".

    (Incidentally, happens outside Wikipedia too, especially among circularly-referencing newspapers.)

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10