Wikipedia-Sponsored Pilot Study Lauds Wikipedia Accuracy

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday August 2, 2012 @06:46AM 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."

2 of 125 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oil industry report says oil industry great by crazyjj · 2012-08-02 06:49 · Score: 5, Funny

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 by Chrisq · 2012-08-02 06:56 · 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.