It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > WebNews
Wikipedia is accurate says, er, Wikipedia study Wikipedia is accurate says, er, Wikipedia study
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Wikipedia is accurate says, er, Wikipedia study
Thread Tools
Old 6th August 2012, 06:36   #1
[M] Reviewer
Stefan Mileschin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Romania
Posts: 144,353
Stefan Mileschin Freshly Registered
Default Wikipedia is accurate says, er, Wikipedia study

A Wikipedia-sponsored 'pilot study' has praised the online Encyclopaedia's accuracy and claims that it is better than Encyclopaedia Britannica.

For the record, if you wrote a page on Wikipedia about yourself, you would find that one of its teams of editors had deleted it for being advertising. However when Wikipedia commissions a study into itself and reports that it is wonderful, this is apparently ok.

The Wikimedia Foundation last November enlisted the e-learning company Epic and researchers from Oxford University to conduct what would be the first organised look at Wikipedia's accuracy.

Before that, a 2005 report by Nature, showed Wikipedia had at least four mistakes per article in comparison to three for Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The results indicate that Wikipedia articles scored higher in each of three languages, and fared well in categories of accuracy and references.

English Wikipedia fared well against Encyclopaedia Britannica in terms of accuracy, references and overall judgement.

What makes us smell a rat is that the report said that there were little differences between the two on style and overall quality score. We were not aware that the Encyclopaedia Britannica articles were penned by a person with a crayon, like some of the wikipedia articles appear to have been. Nor does the Encyclopaedia Britannica employ people with faked doctorates or fake penis experts.

Epic states in its own press release that Wikipedia articles emerge commendably.

One of its advantages is that Wikipedia articles were more up to date than other articles and were generally considered to be better referenced.

Furthermore, they appeared to be at least as strong as other sources in terms of comprehensiveness, lack of bias and even readability.

You can read the report here
Stefan Mileschin is offline   Reply With Quote

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bots edit Wikipedia, clean up your nonsense Stefan Mileschin WebNews 0 26th July 2012 07:42
Monmouth becomes Wikipedia town Stefan Mileschin WebNews 0 21st May 2012 07:10
Wikipedia Contributor Hits 1M Edits Mark Stefan Mileschin WebNews 0 23rd April 2012 08:01
Wikipedia Dumps Google Maps Stefan Mileschin WebNews 0 9th April 2012 07:11
A World Without Wikipedia @ Stefan Mileschin WebNews 0 20th January 2012 08:37
Wikipedia Editors Question Site's Blackout Stefan Mileschin WebNews 0 19th January 2012 06:57
A $20 8-Bit Wikipedia Reader For Your TV jmke WebNews 0 29th July 2010 20:38
$100 Laptops to Include Offline Version of Wikipedia jmke WebNews 0 5th August 2006 12:46
Top Wikipedia Articles - Showdown! jmke WebNews 0 3rd August 2006 11:57

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15.

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO