http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_reliability#cite_note-GilesJ2005Internet-0
This article discusses the reliability of Wikipedia and in the second paragraph it states simply: "A study in 2005 suggested that Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate for 'serious errors.'" However it fails to mention all of the problems with that study conducted by Nature science journal, such as its small sample size, limited scope (only dealt with approximately 48 scientific articles), and Encyclopaedia Britannica's subsequent call for the retraction of the paper, arguing that Nature manipulated information and seriously exaggerated the inaccuracies in Encyclopaedia Britannica. It does touch on this later in the article but I feel like there should at least be a link to that part in the introductory paragraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_wikipedia
Similarly, in the Quality Concerns section of this article, more information can be added to the Nature journal debate. I think the Reliability of Wikipedia article can be cross-linked to this particular section of this article for clarity. In general I found it difficult to find missing information on these sites about Wikipedia because according to the history page of these articles, they are updated very regularly. I believe other topics that aren't accessed as often and aren't directly about the technology itself would be easier to determine missing points of view.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
wikipedia post #2
What are the arguments in favor of Wikipedia as a democratic and reliable contribution to knowledge? Who tends to contribute content to Wikipedia and argue in favor of it?
Wikipedia is nearly as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica, according to Nature's synthesized peer reviews of both sources: "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively" ("Internet encyclopaedias go head to head"). It is clear, and even the creators of Wikipedia themselves agree, that inherent in this popular editing system is the possibility of inaccuracy. However the check on the system, users and special supervisors, is typically good at catching and editing errors, and the site appears to be growing more accurate as it gains a larger user base. Wikipedia should be seen in general as a reliable source of information, but of course readers should always cross-reference and consult a variety of sources.
People generally contribute very little content to the site (minor editing of spelling or syntax, or adding one or two sentences). According to Jimbo Wales, face of Wikipedia, "over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users ... 524 people. ... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits" ("Who Writes Wikipedia?"). The people that make larger contributions (adding whole paragraphs or creating new articles) tend to be experienced and educated in the particular subject in consideration, like professors, enthusiasts, or random people who happen to know a great deal about certain topics. Occasionally users add deliberately incorrect information or jokes out of curiosity, but these are usually noticed and removed quickly by other users.
Search tool used: www.google.com
Key words: "Wikipedia +who contributes" and "Wikipedia +reliable"
1. "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
This article seemed credible because it is relatively unbiased and from Nature, international weekly journal of science. The purpose of the article is to discuss the expert-led review of the accuracy of Wikipedia compared to Encyclopaedia Britannica in December of 2005. The organization responsible is the journal itself, funded presumably by subscribers and ads. Since this investigation was carried out in 2005, it would be interesting to find information about a newer study of Wikipedia's accuracy, or to find another study with a larger sample size of articles.
2. "Who writes Wikipedia?" http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
This was a personal blog post (no funding) by Aaron Swartz in September 2006 about who writes the majority of the articles presented on Wikipedia. I considered this to be a credible source because Swartz is a published author (technical journals, popular publications) and his blog offers a very thorough, unbiased account, includes a great deal of research and references, and even questions previous research, opting instead to document his own research.
Wikipedia is nearly as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica, according to Nature's synthesized peer reviews of both sources: "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively" ("Internet encyclopaedias go head to head"). It is clear, and even the creators of Wikipedia themselves agree, that inherent in this popular editing system is the possibility of inaccuracy. However the check on the system, users and special supervisors, is typically good at catching and editing errors, and the site appears to be growing more accurate as it gains a larger user base. Wikipedia should be seen in general as a reliable source of information, but of course readers should always cross-reference and consult a variety of sources.
People generally contribute very little content to the site (minor editing of spelling or syntax, or adding one or two sentences). According to Jimbo Wales, face of Wikipedia, "over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users ... 524 people. ... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits" ("Who Writes Wikipedia?"). The people that make larger contributions (adding whole paragraphs or creating new articles) tend to be experienced and educated in the particular subject in consideration, like professors, enthusiasts, or random people who happen to know a great deal about certain topics. Occasionally users add deliberately incorrect information or jokes out of curiosity, but these are usually noticed and removed quickly by other users.
Search tool used: www.google.com
Key words: "Wikipedia +who contributes" and "Wikipedia +reliable"
1. "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
This article seemed credible because it is relatively unbiased and from Nature, international weekly journal of science. The purpose of the article is to discuss the expert-led review of the accuracy of Wikipedia compared to Encyclopaedia Britannica in December of 2005. The organization responsible is the journal itself, funded presumably by subscribers and ads. Since this investigation was carried out in 2005, it would be interesting to find information about a newer study of Wikipedia's accuracy, or to find another study with a larger sample size of articles.
2. "Who writes Wikipedia?" http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
This was a personal blog post (no funding) by Aaron Swartz in September 2006 about who writes the majority of the articles presented on Wikipedia. I considered this to be a credible source because Swartz is a published author (technical journals, popular publications) and his blog offers a very thorough, unbiased account, includes a great deal of research and references, and even questions previous research, opting instead to document his own research.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wikipedia - How it works
How does Wikipedia work? How are encyclopedia entries created, edited, and checked for inaccuracy, libel, and other problems?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (found at www.wikipedia.org) that is based on the internet and is/can be collaboratively contributed to and edited by any internet user; this process is also referred to as "participatory journalism" ("Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource"). Any user can theoretically add an article or change any of the vast number of articles already available on Wikipedia, with the restrictions that they have to agree with other users in the community and that they present material in a neutral way (although the system does not directly enforce any restrictions). This phenomenon has grown quickly: "As of 2005, Wikipedia consists of more than 2,5 million articles in over two hundred languages, with the English, German, French and Japanese editions being the biggest ones" ("Semantic Wikipedia"). Articles can be found using the search option located at the left side of the web page. Once an article is found, the used can change the information available by clicking on the "edit this page" link at the top of the article. Users must create a user account in order to create a new article, but already existing articles can be edited either with a user account or anonymously. Logging in ensures that the user's IP address will be recorded publicly in the page's edit history. There is also a discussion link so users can discuss the information in the article; a history link so users can see how many times the article has been edited, when, and by which user (IP address). To facilitate browsing, articles can be linked to one another using URL shortcuts attached to keywords that are titles of other, related articles. This also allows articles to be categorized and classified according to content matter. To make sure contributions are valid, Wikipedia requires that they are accompanied by published sources (citations); if they are not, the article has a disclaimer to let the reader know that the page lacks proper citations. There is also an assessment scale that articles are measures against, to determine their quality as a reliable source. For example, in order to attain top rank (called a "featured article"), the page must be supported by several peer-revied journals and publications, and must include extensive coverage of the topic ("Wikipedia"). If an article is not neutral, concern a notable topic, contain unoriginal research and/or verifiable content, then it is liable to modification or deletion by administrators. Administrators can also block users from future editing, and lock articles from being editied further, such as in the case of editorial disagreements.
I used Google because I wanted to find sources detailing the way Wikipedia works, and because I wanted to view them in order of popularity ranking of linking to ascertain their credibility.
Search terms used: "Wikipedia"
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1140000/1135863/p585-volkel.pdf?key1=1135863&key2=2586487021&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=23672192&CFTOKEN=32727069
http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf
The two sites above are scholarly journals concerning the use and applications of Wikipedia; they are credible because they are published and cite several sources. The journal articles reflect modern technology studies done by scholars at a University in Germany and Hong Kong, respectively. Their purpose was to discuss the technology of Wikipedia and its implications of use, and how they could be improved. The first article was written in or after 2005 (according to the cited sources), and the second article was written in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
I obtained the most information for how Wikipedia works using Wikipedia itself, ironically. The credibility for this site is contingent on the editing done by users, as outlined above. The articles cites a huge number of references, many of which are journal and newspaper publications regarding the content and use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is a non-profit organization, and a free encyclopedia for all internet users.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (found at www.wikipedia.org) that is based on the internet and is/can be collaboratively contributed to and edited by any internet user; this process is also referred to as "participatory journalism" ("Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource"). Any user can theoretically add an article or change any of the vast number of articles already available on Wikipedia, with the restrictions that they have to agree with other users in the community and that they present material in a neutral way (although the system does not directly enforce any restrictions). This phenomenon has grown quickly: "As of 2005, Wikipedia consists of more than 2,5 million articles in over two hundred languages, with the English, German, French and Japanese editions being the biggest ones" ("Semantic Wikipedia"). Articles can be found using the search option located at the left side of the web page. Once an article is found, the used can change the information available by clicking on the "edit this page" link at the top of the article. Users must create a user account in order to create a new article, but already existing articles can be edited either with a user account or anonymously. Logging in ensures that the user's IP address will be recorded publicly in the page's edit history. There is also a discussion link so users can discuss the information in the article; a history link so users can see how many times the article has been edited, when, and by which user (IP address). To facilitate browsing, articles can be linked to one another using URL shortcuts attached to keywords that are titles of other, related articles. This also allows articles to be categorized and classified according to content matter. To make sure contributions are valid, Wikipedia requires that they are accompanied by published sources (citations); if they are not, the article has a disclaimer to let the reader know that the page lacks proper citations. There is also an assessment scale that articles are measures against, to determine their quality as a reliable source. For example, in order to attain top rank (called a "featured article"), the page must be supported by several peer-revied journals and publications, and must include extensive coverage of the topic ("Wikipedia"). If an article is not neutral, concern a notable topic, contain unoriginal research and/or verifiable content, then it is liable to modification or deletion by administrators. Administrators can also block users from future editing, and lock articles from being editied further, such as in the case of editorial disagreements.
I used Google because I wanted to find sources detailing the way Wikipedia works, and because I wanted to view them in order of popularity ranking of linking to ascertain their credibility.
Search terms used: "Wikipedia"
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1140000/1135863/p585-volkel.pdf?key1=1135863&key2=2586487021&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=23672192&CFTOKEN=32727069
http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf
The two sites above are scholarly journals concerning the use and applications of Wikipedia; they are credible because they are published and cite several sources. The journal articles reflect modern technology studies done by scholars at a University in Germany and Hong Kong, respectively. Their purpose was to discuss the technology of Wikipedia and its implications of use, and how they could be improved. The first article was written in or after 2005 (according to the cited sources), and the second article was written in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
I obtained the most information for how Wikipedia works using Wikipedia itself, ironically. The credibility for this site is contingent on the editing done by users, as outlined above. The articles cites a huge number of references, many of which are journal and newspaper publications regarding the content and use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is a non-profit organization, and a free encyclopedia for all internet users.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)