• Posted in: Home
• 59
• Author: admin

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia. The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English- language edition) has been frequently questioned and often assessed. The reliability has been tested statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1] Incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge editing' (inserting false, defamatory or biased statements into biographies) have attracted publicity.[2][3]A study in the journal Nature said that in 2.

Wikipedia's scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[4]Encyclopædia Britannica disputed the Nature study,[5] and Nature replied with a formal response and point- by- point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[6] Between 2. Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[7]toxicology,[8]oncology,[9]pharmaceuticals,[1. Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology[1. Psychological Medicine (2.

European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised concerns about reliability.[1. Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2.

Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[1. Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self- healing capabilities".[1. False information has sometimes lasted for a long time on Wikipedia. In May 2. 00. 5, an editor sparked controversy by creating an article about John Seigenthaler that included false and defamatory statements.[1. The inaccurate information remained uncorrected for four months.

A biographical article on French Wikipedia portrayed a "Léon- Robert de L'Astran" as an 1. Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him.

A student investigation determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed.[2. Journalists from a spectrum of publications have similarly been embarrassed by repeating mistaken or fake information.[2. Wikipedia editing model.

Wikipedia allows anonymous editing; contributors are not required to provide any identification, or even an email address. A 2. 00. 7 study at Dartmouth College of the English Wikipedia noted that, contrary to usual social expectations, anonymous editors were some of Wikipedia's most productive contributors of valid content.[2. However, the Dartmouth study was criticized by John Timmer of the Ars Technica website for its methodological shortcomings.[2. Wikipedia trusts the same community to self- regulate and become more proficient at quality control. Wikipedia has harnessed the work of millions of people to produce the world's largest knowledge- based site along with software to support it, resulting in more than nineteen million articles written, across more than 2.

For this reason, there has been considerable interest in the project both academically and from diverse fields such as information technology, business, project management, knowledge acquisition, software programming, other collaborative projects and sociology, to explore whether the Wikipedia model can produce quality results, what collaboration in this way can reveal about people, and whether the scale of involvement can overcome the obstacles of individual limitations and poor editorship which would otherwise arise. Areas of reliability. Article instability and susceptibility to bias are two potential problem areas in a crowdsourced work like Wikipedia. The reliability of Wikipedia articles can be measured by the following criteria: Accuracy of information provided within articles. Appropriateness of the images provided with the article. Appropriateness of the style and focus of the articles[2. Susceptibility to, and exclusion and removal of, false information.

Comprehensiveness, scope and coverage within articles and in the range of articles. Identification of reputable third- party sources as citations. Stability of the articles. Susceptibility to editorial and systemic bias. Quality of writing. Watch The Mexican Online Ibtimes. The first four of these have been the subjects of various studies of the project, while the presence of bias is strongly disputed, and the prevalence and quality of citations can be tested within Wikipedia.[2.

Directed by Jeff Bleckner. With Emily VanCamp, Steve Talley, Timothy Busfield, Julio Oscar Mechoso. A 24-year-old first-time teacher overcomes her initial fears and. The place for everything in Oprah's world. Get health, beauty, recipes, money, decorating and relationship advice to live your best life on Oprah.com. The Oprah Show. Google fired a software engineer yesterday in response to public outrage over the man’s 10-page screed against women being represented proportionally in tech. This morning, Gizmodo filed a lawsuit against the FBI seeking access to any files it holds on Roger Ailes, the one-time chief executive of Fox News.

In addition, the scientific research in the area of computational mechanism for trust and reputation in virtual societies was oriented to increase the reliability and performance of electronic communities such as Wikipedia with more quantitative methods and temporal factors.[2. In contrast with all the previous intrinsic metrics, several "market- oriented" extrinsic measures demonstrate that large audiences trust Wikipedia in one way or another. For instance, "5. US] physicians report that they've consulted .. Wikipedia] for information on health conditions", according to a report from IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.[2. Assessments. Comparative studies. On October 2. 4, 2.

British newspaper The Guardian published a story titled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which a panel of experts were asked to review seven entries related to their fields, giving each article reviewed a number designation out of ten points.[3. Scores ranged from 0 to 8, but most received marks between 5 and 8.

The most common criticisms were: Poor prose, or ease- of- reading issues (3 mentions)Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention)The most common praises were: Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies (4 mentions)Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)In December 2. Nature published results of an attempted blind study seeking reviewer evaluations of the accuracy of a small subset of articles from Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. The non- peer- reviewed study was based on Nature's selection of 4. The articles were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers, a customary practice for journal article reviews. Based on their reviews, on average the Wikipedia articles were described as containing 4 errors or omissions, while the Britannica articles 3. Only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in Encyclopædia Britannica.

The study concluded that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries",[4] although Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured".[4]Encyclopædia Britannica expressed concerns, leading Nature to release further documentation of its survey method.[3. Based on this additional information, Encyclopædia Britannica denied the validity of the Nature study, stating that it was "fatally flawed". Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that some of the extracts were compilations that included articles written for the youth version, that Nature did not check the factual assertions of its reviewers, and that many points which the reviewers labeled as errors were differences of editorial opinion.[3. Nature acknowledged the compiled nature of some of the Britannica extracts, but denied that this invalidated the conclusions of the study.[3. Encyclopædia Britannica also argued that a breakdown of the errors indicated that the mistakes in Wikipedia were more often the inclusion of incorrect facts, while the mistakes in Britannica were "errors of omission", making "Britannica far more accurate than Wikipedia, according to the figures".[3. Nature has since rejected the Britannica response,[3.