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.
No comments:
Post a Comment