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?
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.
Unfortunately the study has been deemed Not Noteworthy by one of Wikipedia's editors and been removed.
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
Well, duh, of course they're going to make cigarettes safe. Think about it. Why would they want their best customers dying off?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That's what they should do, though! Wikipedia isn't a place to publish your own personal knowledge, but a place to publish information that can be cited, ideally to peer-reviewed articles or books. Half the point of a Wikipedia article is being able to look up the references for further reading, and citation where [3] resolves to "[3] Personal experience of Wikipedia user Ancient_Hacker" just isn't very helpful for that.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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
Yep, because wikipedia makes so much money off of everyone using all their bandwidth with no ads.
No. They are arguing that verifiable information is better then "Take my word for it" information.
In an ideal world, if the "take my word for it" information is true, then it should get tested, verified, and published somewhere so that it can move into the "verifiable" information category.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
No, the theory is that it is OK, as long as there are people not in anyway connected or related to the author being able to continue the maintenance of the article. The problem with personal knowledge is that it gets lost as soon as the person loses interest in wikipedia or is run over by a bus (which in turn also causes a sudden loss of interest in maintaining wikipedia articles). That's the same reason original research is frowned upon - there should always be at least a second person being able to continue where the original author as left. And it helps if you can make yourself knowledgeable about the subject without being referred to Wikipedia articles, if you want to edit Wikipedia articles.
Think of it as the Bob Lazar rule. You can't have people adding their weird theories based on unverified personal experience.
And, IMO people tend to over-value certain bits of information based on personal opinions founded at the time. You see this all the time on Slashdot where a poster tries to pull rank by saying stuff like "I was there, I worked at a computer shop in 1998!". They then proceed to get basic facts incorrect (common one: the order of Windows releases), or just parrot some conventional wisdom.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.