The reliability of Wikipedia (especially the English edition) has been frequently questioned and often judged. Reliability has been tested statistically, through comparative reviews, analysis of historical patterns, and the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the unique editing process for Wikipedia. Conflicting editing incidents, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge editing' (including false, defamatory, or biased statements) has attracted publicity.
A study in the journal Nature says that in 2005, the Wikipedia scientific article approached the accuracy level in the EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica and had the same level of "serious error". EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica denies research Nature and Nature responds with formal responses and point-by-point counters Britannica ' s main objection. Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology, pharmacy, and psychiatry compared to professional and peer-reviewed sources and found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage is of high standard. Concerns about readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012), while the study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raises concerns about reliability.
Because Wikipedia is open for anonymous and collaborative editing, its reliability assessment often checks how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003 - two years after Wikipedia - found that "vandalism is usually fixed very quickly - so fast that most users will never see the impact" and concluded that Wikipedia "a very effective self-healing "ability".
False information sometimes lasts for a long time on Wikipedia. In May 2005, the editor sparked controversy by making an article about John Seigenthaler entering false and slander statements. Inaccurate information remains uncorrected for four months. A biographical article on the French Wikipedia describes "LÃÆ' Â © on-Robert de L'Astran" as the owner of an 18th century anti-slavery ship, who heads the Royal Olympic SÃÆ' Â © golÃÆ'¨ne Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. The student inquiry determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran never existed. Journalists from the spectrum of publications are equally embarrassed by repeating false or false information.
Video Reliability of Wikipedia
model pengeditan Wikipedia
Wikipedia allows anonymous editing; contributors do not need to provide any identification, or even an email address. A 2007 study at Dartmouth College of English Wikipedia notes that, contrary to usual social expectations, anonymous editors are the most prolific contributors to Wikipedia from valid content. However, the Dartmouth study was criticized by John Timmer from the Ars Technica website because of its methodological shortcomings.
Wikipedia trusts the same community to govern itself and become more adept at quality control. Wikipedia has leveraged the work of millions of people to produce the world's largest knowledge-based site along with software to support it, generating over nineteen million articles written, in over 280 different language versions, in less than twelve years. For this reason, there is considerable interest in projects both academically and from areas such as information technology, business, project management, knowledge acquisition, software programming, collaborative projects and other sociologists, to explore whether the Wikipedia model can produce quality results , what collaboration in this way can reveal about people, and whether the scale of engagement can overcome barriers to the limitations of individuals and poor editors who ought to emerge.
Area reliability
The reliability of Wikipedia articles can be measured by the following criteria:
- The accuracy of the information provided in the article
- Compatibility of images provided with articles
- Fit style and article focus
- Vulnerability to, and exceptions and deletions, false information
- Completeness, coverage, and coverage in articles and in various articles
- Identify a reputable third-party source as a quote
- Stability articles
- Vulnerability to editorial and systemic bias
- Writing quality
The first four have been the subject of many project studies, while the presence of bias is strongly debated, and the prevalence and quality of citations can be tested in Wikipedia. In addition, scientific research in the field of computing mechanisms for trust and reputation in virtual communities is oriented to enhance the reliability and performance of the electronic community such as Wikipedia with quantitative methods and temporal factors.
Unlike all previous intrinsic metrics, some "market-oriented" extrinsic actions show that many viewers trust Wikipedia in one way or another. For example, "50 percent of [US] doctors report that they have consulted... [Wikipedia] for information on health conditions", according to a report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.
Maps Reliability of Wikipedia
Assessment
Comparative study
On October 24, 2005, the British newspaper The Guardian published a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which the expert panel is asked to review the seven entries related to their field, giving each article review the number designation of ten points. Scores range from 0 to 8, but most receive marks between 5 and 8. The most common criticisms are:
- Example prose, or easy reading problem (3 mentions)
- Negligence or inaccuracies, often minor but including key omissions in some articles (3 titles)
- Poor balance, with less important areas given more attention and vice versa (1 specify)
The most common praise is:
- Factually audible and true, no flashy inaccuracies (4 titles)
- A lot of useful information, including well-chosen links, that allow "accessing a lot of information quickly" (3 mentions)
In December 2005, the journal published published the results of an attempted blind study that sought a review reviewer for the accuracy of a small number of articles from Wikipedia and EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica . The non-peer-reviewed research is based on a selection of Nature ' of 42 articles on scientific topics, including biographies of famous scientists. The articles were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers, customary practices for journal article reviews. Based on their reviews, the average Wikipedia article is illustrated containing 4 errors or omissions, while the article Britannica contains 3. Only 4 serious errors are found on Wikipedia, and 4 in Britannica . The study concludes that "Wikipedia is close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries", although Wikipedia articles are often "unstructured".
EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica expressed its concern, led Nature to release further documentation of the survey method. Based on this additional information, EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica denies the validity of the study Nature , stating that it is "very wrong". Among the criticisms of Britannica is that quotations rather than the full text of some of their articles are used, that some extracts are compilations that include articles written for the teen version, Nature it does not check factual statements from its reviewers, and many of the points labeled by critics as mistakes are editorial discrepancies. Britannica further states that "While the title states that 'Wikipedia approaches Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries,' the number buried deep inside the article body says quite the contrary: Wikipedia actually has the third inaccuracy is more than Britannica . (As we pointed out below, Nature 's research is greatly exaggerated Britannica Nature recognizes the compiled nature of some Britannica extracts, but denies that this nullifies the conclusion of the study. EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica also argues that error-solving suggests that errors on Wikipedia include more often incorrect facts, while errors in Britannica are "errors of negligence", making " > Britannica is much more accurate than Wikipedia , according to the numbers â € Nature has rejected the Britannica response, stating that any errors in his review section is not biased in favor of one of the encyclopedias, which in some cases uses the excerpt of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica does not share special mention with Nature before publishing a reply " "her.
Point-to-point disagreements between the two sides discussing excerpting compilation/text and very small sample size issues - argue for result bias supporting Wikipedia, versus comprehensive, full article, large sample size study supporting the quality of the controlled format Britannica - has been echoed in online discussions, including articles citing the study of Nature, for example, where "defective study design" for manual article selection/article section, lack of learning "statistical power" in articles comparing 4 ÃÆ'â € "10 1 of & gt; 10 5 Britannica and & gt; 10 6 English Wikipedia articles, and no statistical analysis of studies (eg, confidence intervals reported for study results) have also been recorded.
In June 2006, Roy Rosenzweig, a professor specializing in American history, published a comparison of Wikipedia biographies from 25 Americans with an appropriate biography found in Encarta and American National Biography Online. He writes that Wikipedia is "very accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in US history" and describes some mistakes as "widely held but inaccurate beliefs". However, he states that Wikipedia often fails to distinguish the essentials from trivial details, and does not provide the best references. He also complained about Wikipedia's lack of "persuasive analysis and interpretation, and a clear and interesting prose". Wikipedia's policy on original research, including the synthesis of unpublished publish data, prohibits new analyzes and interpretations not found in reliable sources.
A web-based survey conducted from December 2005 to May 2006 by Larry Press, a professor of Information Systems at California State University at Dominguez Hills, rated "the accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles". Fifty people accepted the invitation to rate the article. Of the fifty, seventy-six percent (76%) agree or strongly agree that the Wikipedia article is accurate, and forty-six percent (46%) agree or strongly agree that it is complete. Eighteen people compared the articles they reviewed to an article on the same topic at EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica . Opinions about almost equal accuracy between the two encyclopedias (6 supporting Britannica, 7 supporting Wikipedia, 5 declaring them the same), and eleven of the eighteen (61%) found Wikipedia somewhat or substantially more complete, compared to seven of the eighteen (39% ) to Britannica. The survey did not try random selection from the participants, and it was not clear how the participants were invited.
German Computing Magazine c't performed a comparison of Brockhaus Multimedial , Microsoft Encarta c't in February 2007 used 150 search terms, of which 56 were carefully evaluated, to compare four digital encyclopedias: Bertelsmann EnzyklopÃÆ'¤die 2007, Brockhaus Multimedial Premium 2007, Encarta 2007 EnzyklopÃÆ'¤ dead and Wikipedia. This concludes: "We found no more errors in the free encyclopedia texts than their commercial competitors."
See Wikipedia as defined by economists on the market the idea of ​​perfect competition, George Bragues (University of Guelph-Humber), check out the Wikipedia article about the seven philosophers top West: Aristotle, Plato, Immanuel Kant, Renà ©  © Descartes, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Thomas Aquinas , and John Locke. Wikipedia article compared with a consensus list of themes drawn from the four reference works in philosophy. Bragues found that, on average, a Wikipedia article only covers 52% â € <â € PC Pro magazine (August 2007) asks experts to compare four articles (small samples) in their scientific field between Wikipedia, Britannica and Encarta. In each case Wikipedia is described as "mostly sound", "well handled", "performing well", "good for bare facts" and "very accurate". One article has a "marked deterioration toward the end" while the other has a "clearer and more elegant" text, the third being judged to be less well written but more detailed than its competitors, and the fourth "more useful for serious students than is equivalent to Encarta or Britannica ". No serious errors are recorded in the Wikipedia article, while serious errors are recorded in an Encarta article and one Britannica. In October 2007, Australian magazine PC Authority published a feature article on Wikipedia accuracy. The article compares Wikipedia content with other popular online encyclopedias, Britannica and Encarta. The magazine asks experts to evaluate articles related to their field. A total of four articles reviewed by three experts. Wikipedia is comparable to other encyclopedias, beyond the chemistry category. In December 2007, German magazine Stern published a comparison of the German Wikipedia and the 15-volume online version of Brockhaus EnzyklopÃÆ'¤die. The test is assigned to a research institute (Cologne-based In the April 2008 issue of the British computing magazine PC Plus compared the English Wikipedia with the edition of the World Encyclopedia DVD and EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica , rated for each coverage of a series of random subjects. It concludes, "Quality content is good in all three cases" and advises Wikipedia users "Be aware that the wrong edits do happen, and check anything that seems odd with a second source, but most of Wikipedia is filled with valuable and accurate information." A 2008 paper in the Service Review Reference compares nine Wikipedia entries on historical topics to their colleagues at EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica , American Historical Dictionary > and American National Biography Online . The paper found that Wikipedia entries have an overall accuracy of 80 percent, while other encyclopedias have an accuracy of 95 to 96 percent. A 2010 study assesses the extent to which Wikipedia pages are about the history of countries that comply with site assurance policies. It was found that, contrary to this policy, many of the claims in this article are not supported by citations, and that many of them are sourced to popular media and government websites, rather than academic journal articles. In April 2011, a study was published by Adam Brown of Brigham Young University in the journal PS Political Science & amp; Politics checking "thousands of Wikipedia articles about candidates, elections, and office officials". The study found that while the information in this article tends to be accurate, the articles examined contain many errors of omission. A 2012 study written by Shane Greenstein examines a decade of Wikipedia articles about US politics and finds that the more contributors there are articles given, the more neutral it tends to be, in line with the narrow interpretation of Linus's Law. Reavley et al. (2012) compares the quality of articles on selected mental health topics on Wikipedia with related articles at EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica and psychiatric textbooks. They ask experts to rate article content regarding accuracy, up-to-dateness, wide coverage, references and readability. Wikipedia scores highest on all criteria except for readability, and the authors conclude that Wikipedia is as good or better than Britannica and standard textbooks. A section of the 2014 perspective on the New England Journal of Medicine examines the Wikipedia page on 22 prescription drugs to determine if they have been updated to include the latest FDA security warnings. It was found that 41% of these pages were updated within two weeks after the warning, 23% updated more than two weeks later, and the remaining 36% had not been updated to include warnings more than 1 year later in January 2014. A 2014 study in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association examined 19 Wikipedia articles on herbal supplements, and concluded that all of these articles contained information about their "therapeutic use and adverse effects", but also concluded that "some lack of information about drug interactions, pregnancy, and contraindications ". Therefore, the authors of the study recommend that patients not only rely on Wikipedia as a source of information about herbal supplements in question. Another study published in 2014 at PLOS ONE found that the Wikipedia information on pharmacology was 99.7% accurate when compared with pharmacological textbooks, and that the completeness of the information on Wikipedia was 83.8%. The study also determined that the completeness of this Wikipedia article is the lowest (68%) in the "pharmacokinetics" category and the highest (91.3%) in the "indication" category. The authors conclude that "Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education". Expert opinion
Librarian view
In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, the self-described information specialist and Internet consultant Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and "did not know any of the librarians". He then explained that "the main problem is lack of authority.With print publications, publishers should make sure that their data is reliable, because their livelihood depends on it, but with something like this, it all comes out of the window."
A 2006 Wikipedia review by Library Journal, using a librarian panel, "the strongest critic of reference materials, whatever the format", asks "old reviews" to evaluate three Wikipedia areas (popular culture), current affairs, and science), and concludes: "While there is still reason to proceed cautiously when using resources that take pride in limited professional management, many encouraging signs show that (at least for the time being) Wikipedia can be given a sealed approval librarian." A reviewer who "decided to explore controversial historical and contemporary events, hopes to find a glaring harassment" said, "I am pleased with Wikipedia's objective presentation of controversial subjects" but that "because much information circulates in cyberspace, a healthy skepticism. and skills in winnowing facts of opinion are required ". Other reviewers noted that there is "a lot of variety" but "full content is full".
In 2007, Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association (ALA), stated in an Encyclopedia blog Britannica that a professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a nutritionist who recommends a steady diet of Big Mac with everything ".
The library at Trent University in Ontario states that many articles are "long and comprehensive", but there is "plenty of room for misinformation and bias [and] many variations in both the quality and depth of the article". He adds that Wikipedia has its advantages and limitations, that it has "excellent technical topics coverage" and the article "is often added quickly and, as a result, the coverage of current events is quite good", comparing this with traditional sources that can not achieve the task this. It concludes that, depending on need, one must think critically and judge a person's source of worth, "whether you are looking for facts or opinions, how deeply you want to be as you explore a topic, the importance of reliability and accuracy, and the importance of timely or recent information" , and added that Wikipedia can be used in any event as a "starting point".
A 2006 article for the Canadian Library Association (CLA) discusses the Wikipedia approach, process and outcome in depth, commenting for example that in a controversial topic, "what is most remarkable is that both sides are really involved with each other and negotiate a version of articles that both can more or less live with ". The author commented that:
Actually Wikipedia has a more institutional structure than it first appears. About 800 experienced users are designated as administrators, with special binding and loss strengths: they can protect and unlock, delete and undelete and restore articles, and block and unblock users. They are expected to use their power in a neutral way, shaping and applying community consensus. The effects of their interventions show on the discussion pages of the most contentious articles. Wikipedia has survived so far because it's easier to reverse vandalism than to do it...
Information of the Day (March 2006) quotes librarian Nancy O'Neill (principal librarian for Reference Services at Santa Monica Public Library System) who says that "there is a lot of skepticism about Wikipedia in the library community." But that " he also admitted cheerfully that Wikipedia makes a great starting point for searching, you get terminology, names, and feelings for the subject. "
PC Pro (August 2007) quotes the head of the European and American Collection at the British Library, Stephen Bury, who states "Wikipedia is a good thing - it responds more quickly to new events, and new evidence on items old ". The article concludes: "For [Bury], the problem is not so much the reliability of Wikipedia content so many ways of using it." "This has become the first port for researchers," Bury said, before noting that this "is not always a problem except when they do not go any further". According to Bury, the trick to using Wikipedia is to understand that "just because in an encyclopedia (free, web or print) does not mean it's right. Ask for proof... and donate."
Academe
Academics also criticize Wikipedia for failing to be a reliable source and because Wikipedia editors may not have the skills, competencies, or credentials in the topics they contribute. Adrian Riskin, a mathematician at Whittier College commented that while highly technical articles could be written by mathematicians for mathematicians, more general mathematical topics, such as articles on polynomials, were written in a very amateurish way with a number of obvious errors.
Since Wikipedia can not be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing official papers, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited their use only to pointers to external sources. Criticism is not a reliable source, however, it may not only apply to Wikipedia but to the encyclopaedia in general - some university professors are not impressed when students quote a print-based encyclopedia in assigned work. However, it seems that instructors have underestimated the use of Wikipedia in academia because of this concern. Researchers and academics argue that while Wikipedia can not be used as a 100 percent accurate source for final papers, this is a valuable jumping point for research that can lead to many possibilities if approached critically. What may be missing in the academic world is the emphasis on critical analysis in terms of the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We can not close all Wikipedia (there is less inaccuracy than errors) but begin to support it, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an educational tool along with critical thinking skills that will allow students to filter out the information it finds. on an online encyclopedia and help them analyze their findings critically.
An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a lecturer at Nottingham Business University in Information Systems, the subject of a review on the Ars Technica technical website, involved 55 academics being asked to review certain Wikipedia articles that were either in their field of expertise (group 1) or randomly selected (group 2), concludes that: "Experts find Wikipedia articles more credible than non-experts This indicates that Wikipedia is high accuracy, however, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a resource is really reliable because, according to experts, 13 percent of articles contain errors (10% of experts report factual errors of unspecified levels, 3% of them report spelling errors). "
The Gould Library at Carleton College in Minnesota has a web page explaining the use of Wikipedia in academia. This confirms that "Wikipedia is without question a valuable and informative resource", but that "there is a lack of reliability and stability inherent" in his article, again drawing attention to similar advantages and limitations as another source. Like other reviews, the comment should assess the source of someone and what is wanted of them, and that "Wikipedia might be the right source for some tasks, but not for others." This cites the view of Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia founder that Wikipedia may not be the ideal source for all academic uses, and (as with other sources) suggests that at least, one Wikipedia power is that it provides a good starting point for up-to-date information on very different topics large.
In 2007, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an article written by Cathy Davidson, Professor of Interdisciplinary and English Studies at Duke University, where he asserted that Wikipedia should be used to teach students about the concepts of reliability and credibility.
In 2008, Hamlet Isakhanli, founder and president of Khazar University, compared the EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica and the English Wikipedia article on Azerbaijan and related subjects. His study found that Wikipedia covered the subject much more widely, more accurately and more detail, albeit with a lack of balance, and that Wikipedia was the best source for the first approach.
In 2011, Karl Kehm, a professor of physics at Washington College, said: "I encourage [my students] to use [Wikipedia] as one of the many launch points to pursue original source material.Great Wikipedia entry is well-researched with extensive quotes. ".
Some academic journals refer to Wikipedia articles, but do not raise them to the same level as traditional references. For example, the Wikipedia article has been referenced in an "enhanced perspective" provided online in the Science journal . The first of these perspectives to provide hyperlinks to Wikipedia is "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light", and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links ever since. Publisher Science states that this enhanced perspective "includes hypernotes - linked directly to the website from other relevant information available online - outside of standard bibliographic references".
Journalism and Wikipedia use in the newsroom
In his book 2014 Virtual Unreality , Charles Seife, a journalism professor at New York University, notes Wikipedia's vulnerability to hoaxes and misinformation, including manipulation by commercial and political organizations "posing as ordinary people" makes edits for Wikipedia. In conclusion, Seife presented the following suggestions:
Wikipedia is like an old and eccentric uncle.
He can be so much fun - for years he's seen a lot, and he can tell a great story. He is not stupid either; she collects a lot of information and has some strong opinions about what she collects. You can learn a little from him. But take everything he says with a grain of salt. Many things he thinks he knows are definitely incorrect, or taken out of context. And when the time comes, sometimes he believes things that are a little, well, crazy.
If it's important to you whether something he says is real or fictitious, it's important to check it with a more reliable source.
Seife observes that when false information from Wikipedia spreads to other publications, it sometimes changes the truth itself. On June 28, 2012, for example, an anonymous Wikipedia contributor added the nickname "Millville Meteor" to the biography of Wikipedia baseball player Mike Trout. A few weeks later, a sports writer Newsday reproduced a nickname in an article, and "with that action, the fake nickname becomes real". Seife points out that while Wikipedia, with some standards, can be described as "roughly as accurate" as traditional publications, and more recently, "there is a difference between the types of errors to be found on Wikipedia and what will happen on Wikipedia. Britannica or Collier's or even in the now-defunct Encyclopedia of Microsoft Encarta... the majority of hoaxes on Wikipedia will never appear in ancient encyclopedias. "Dwight Garner, reviewing Seife's book on The New York Times, said he himself had been "quite often burned by bad online information", including "Wikipedia howlers", to adopt a highly skeptical mindset.
In November 2012, Lord Leveson was accused of forgetting "one of the basic rules of journalism" when he named "Brett Straub" as one of the founders of The Independent newspaper in his report on British press culture, practice and ethics. The name was added to the Wikipedia article on The Independent more than a year earlier, and turned out to be a 25-year-old Californian, whose friend has added his name to the Wikipedia string page as a joke. Straub is tracked by The Telegraph and comments, "The fact that someone, especially a judge, believes something on Wikipedia is somewhat surprising, my friend went on and edited many Wikipedia pages and put names there [...] I know my friend has done it but I do not know how to change it back and I think someone will do it.At one point I am the creator of Coca-Cola or something.You know how easy it is to change Wikipedia Every time he finds a red connected he put my name in his place. "
A BBC 2016 article by Ciaran McCauley also notes that "a lot of artificial and mischievous information has found its way" to Wikipedia and that "many of these false facts have fallen through the cracks and have been regarded as gospel by everyone from university academics to major newspapers and broadcasters. "Includes examples of journalists who feel embarrassed by reproducing hoaxes and other forgery from Wikipedia in their writing, including false information propagated by major news organizations in the news of their deaths from Maurice Jarre and Ronnie Hazlehurst, McCauley stated that
Any reporter in the editorial room will probably get a sharp slap on the head of the editor to treat Wikipedia with anything but total skepticism (you can imagine the kick I've taken over this article).
The Daily Mail - itself is prohibited as a source on Wikipedia in 2017 because it is considered unreliable - has publicly declared that "prohibits all its journalists using Wikipedia as a single source by 2014 because it is unreliable".
Science and medicine
Science and medicine are areas where accuracy is so important and peer assessment is the norm. While some Wikipedia content has passed a form of peer review, most do not.
A 2008 study examined 80 entries of Wikipedia drugs. The researchers found some factual errors in this series of articles, but determined that this article often lost important information, such as contraindications and drug interactions. One researcher noted that "If people go and use this as a single or authoritative source without contacting health professionals... it is the kind of negative impact that can occur." The researchers also compared Wikipedia with Medscape Drug Reference (MDR), looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, including adverse drug events, doses, and mechanisms of action. They have determined that MDR provides answers to 82.5 percent of questions, while Wikipedia can only answer 40 percent, and that the answer is also less likely to be completed on Wikipedia. No answer from Wikipedia is factually determined inaccurately, while they find four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors in the Wikipedia entry, compared with 14 for MDR. The lead researcher concluded: "I think these mistakes of negligence can be just as dangerous as the inaccuracies," and he pointed out that drug companies' representatives have been caught for removing information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs seem insecure.
A 2009 survey asked US toxicologists how accurately they assessed the health risk depiction in various media sources. This is based on the 937 members of the Society of Toxicology and finds that these experts consider the reliability of Wikipedia in this field much higher than all traditional news media:
Perhaps in the most surprising findings of the entire study, all of these national media [US. newspapers, news magazines, health magazines, broadcast and cable television networks] are easily overrun by two representatives of the "new media": WebMD and Wikipedia. WebMD is the only news source whose risk coverage is considered accurate by the majority (56 percent) of toxicologists, followed by a 45 percent accuracy rating of Wikipedia. In contrast, only 15 percent described as accurate the chemical risk depiction found in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
In 2010 researchers compared information on 10 types of cancer on Wikipedia to similar data from the National Cancer Institute's Data Query and concluded "Wiki resources have the same accuracy and depth as a professionally edited database" and that "sub-analysis compares commonly with which is not common, cancer shows no difference between the two, "but the ease of reading is a problem.
A study in 2011 found that the categories most often absent in Wikipedia drug articles are categories of drug interactions and drug use in breastfeeding. Other categories with incomplete coverage are descriptions of off-label indications, contraindications and precautions, drug side effects and dosage. Information that most often deviates from other sources used in this study are contraindications and precautions, drug absorption and drug side effects.
A 2012 study reported that the Wikipedia article on pediatric otolaryngology contains twice as many errors and omissions as eMedicine medical database.
In a US study in 2014, 10 researchers examined 10 Wikipedia health articles from the most expensive medical conditions in the United States and found that 90% of entries contain errors and statements that are contrary to recent medical research. However, according to Stevie Benton of Wikimedia UK, the sample size used in the study may be too small to be considered representative.
A 2014 study published in PLOS One looks at the quality of Wikipedia articles on pharmacology, comparing articles from English and German Wikipedia with academic textbooks. He found that "the collaborative and participatory design of Wikipedia does produce high-quality information about pharmacology suitable for undergraduate medical education".
Editor EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica
In a 2004 article entitled "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia", Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of the EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica, stated that Wikipedia was wrong in charging itself as an encyclopedia, because it implied a degree of authority and accountability which he thinks can not be owned by openly editable references. McHenry argues that "ordinary users do not know how conventional encyclopedias achieve reliability, that's all they do". He added:
[H] deeply indebted to Wikipedia articles may at some point in his life attain reliability, it is forever open to people who do not know information or semiliterate... Users who visit Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some fact problems, more on position visitors to public toilets. It may be obviously dirty, so she knows to exercise very carefully, or it may appear clean enough, so she may be lulled in the wrong sense of security. What he does not know is who has used the facilities in front of him. "
Similarly, the executive editor of Britannica ', Ted Pappas, quoted in The Guardian says:
The Wikipedia premise is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. The premise is not proven at all.
In the Sept. 12, 2006, edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jimmy Wales argued with Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of the EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica . Hoiberg focuses on the need for expertise and control in the encyclopedia and quotes Lewis Mumford that extraordinary information can "bring the state of intellectual blurring and depletion almost indistinguishable from massive ignorance". Wales stressed the Wikipedia difference, and insists that openness and transparency lead to quality. Hoiberg replied that he "did not have the time or space to respond to [critics]" and "could link a number of links to articles accusing Wikipedia of mistakes," Wales responded: "No problem! Wikipedia to save with fines articles", and includes links to the Wikipedia article Wikipedia Criticism .
Information loop
Circular reporting is reported to be a reliability issue for Wikipedia. The sources that are accepted as reliable for Wikipedia may actually depend on Wikipedia as a reference source, sometimes indirectly. The danger is that if the original information on Wikipedia is wrong, after it has been reported in a resource that is deemed reliable, Wikipedia may use it to reference false information, giving a clear respect for the error. This in turn increases the likelihood of false information being reported in other media. A known example is the Sacha Baron Cohen article, where fake information added on Wikipedia appears to be used by two newspapers, which makes it considered reliable on Wikipedia. The process of creating a reliable source for false facts has been called "citogenesis" by webcomic artist Randall Munroe.
Propagation of misinformation
Somewhat related to the "information loop", but perhaps more worrisome, is the dissemination of misinformation to other websites (Answers.com is just one of many) that often cite misinformation from Wikipedia word for word, and without mentioning that it originated from Wikipedia. A piece of misinformation originally taken from a Wikipedia article will be shown on perhaps dozens of other websites, even if Wikipedia itself has removed unreliable material.
More
In one article, Today Information (March 2006) likens the comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica with "apples and oranges":
Even the highly respected EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica is full of mistakes, not to mention individual subjective bias and subtle yet corrosive corporate truths... There is no one perfect way. Britannica seems to claim that there is. Wikipedia admits there is no such thing. Librarians and information professionals always know this. That's why we always consult with many sources and advise our users to do the same.
Jonathan Sidener of The San Diego Union-Tribune writes that "self-serving vandalism and misinformation [is] common especially in political articles".
Andrew Orlowski, a columnist for The Register , expressed similar criticism in 2005, writes that the use of the term "encyclopedia" to describe Wikipedia can make the user believe it is more reliable than is possible.
BBC technology specialist Bill Thompson writes that "Most Wikipedia entries are written and submitted in good faith, and we should not allow a debatable area such as politics, religion or biography to form our view of the project as a whole", that it forms a good starting point for serious research but that:
No source of information is guaranteed accurate, and we should not place full confidence in something that can be easily torn down through hate or ignorance... It does not devalue the project completely, it just means we have to be skeptical about the Wikipedia entry as the primary source of information.. Similar to search engine results. Just because something appears in the top 10 on Search MSN or Google does not automatically provide credibility or guarantee its accuracy or importance.
Thompson adds the observation that because the most popular online source is inherently unreliable in this way, one of the by-products of the information age is a wiser listener who learns to examine information rather than bringing it to faith because of its source, leading to "more sense good." on how to evaluate the source of information ".
The Supreme Court of India in its judgment at Commr. Customs, Bangalore vs. ACER India Pvt. (Citation 2007 (12) SKALA581) has stated that "We have referred to Wikipedia, because Counsel is being studied for those who lean there.It is an encyclopaedia and online information that can be entered by someone and because it may not be authentic. "
In his 2007 Guide to Military History on the Internet Simon Fowler considers Wikipedia to be "the best general resource" for military history research, and states that "the results are largely accurate and generally free of bias". When assessing Wikipedia as a military site No. 1 he mentioned that "Wikipedia is often criticized for its inaccuracies and biases, but in my experience, military history articles are very precise."
In July 2008, The Economist magazine described Wikipedia as a "user-generated reference service" and notes that "complex moderation rules describe destruction" generated by cyber-nationalism.
Jimmy Wales, one of the founders of Wikipedia, emphasizes that any type of encyclopaedia is usually inappropriate as a primary source, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.
Professor Carnegie Mellon, Randy Pausch, offers the following anecdote in his book The Last Lecture . He was surprised that his entry into the World Book Encyclopedia of virtual reality was accepted without question, so he concluded, "I now believe Wikipedia is an excellent source for your information, because I know what quality control is for the real encyclopedia. "
Removal of false information
Fernanda ViÃÆ' Â © gas from MIT Media Lab and Martin Wattenberg and Kushal Dave from IBM Research studied the editing streams in the Wikipedia model, with an emphasis on current termination (of vandalism or substantial rewrites), which shows the dynamic flow of matter over time. From the example of editing vandalism on the English Wikipedia during May 2003, they found that most of the action was corrected within minutes, summarizing:
We have examined many pages on Wikipedia that treat controversial topics, and have found that most have, in fact, been tampered with at some point in their history. But we also find that vandalism is usually fixed very quickly - so fast that most users will never see the impact.
They also stated that "it is basically impossible to find a sharp definition of vandalism".
Lih (2004) compares articles before and after being mentioned in the media, and finds that articles referenced externally have higher job qualities.
An informal assessment by the popular IT magazine PC Pro for his article "Wikipedia Uncovered" 2007 tested Wikipedia by introducing 10 errors that "vary between clear and smooth bleeding" to articles (the researchers then corrected the articles ). they have edited). Marking the "impressive" results noted that all but one were recorded and corrected within an hour, and that "Wikipedians' tools and knowledge were too much for our team." A second series of 10 other tests, using "far more subtle errors" and additional techniques to hide their properties, met the same result: "though our stealth efforts are largely... found very quickly... Jesse James ridiculously small errors corrected in one minute and very little change for Queen Anne's entry is entered exactly in two minutes ". Two of the last series are undetectable. The article concludes that "Wikipedia corrects most errors in minutes, but if they are not visible within the first day the possibility... shrinks because you then rely on someone to see the error while reading the article rather than reviewing the edits".
A study at the end of 2007 systematically incorporated inaccuracies into Wikipedia entries about the lives of philosophers. Depending on how exactly the data is interpreted, one-third or half of the inaccuracies are corrected within 48 hours.
A 2007 peer-reviewed study that measures the number of actual page views with "broken" content inferences:
42% of damage is repaired immediately, that is, before it can confuse, offend, or mislead anyone. Nevertheless, there are still hundreds of millions of views damaged.
Loc Vu-Quoc, professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Florida, stated in 2008 that "sometimes mistakes can go on for years without being corrected because experts usually do not read Wikipedia articles in their own field to correct these errors".
Vulnerability to bias
Individual bias and WikiScanner tool
In August 2007, WikiScanner, a tool developed by Virgil Griffith of the California Institute of Technology, was released to match anonymous IP edits in an encyclopedia with a broad address database. The news came about the IP addresses of organizations such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Diebold, Inc. and the Australian government used to edit Wikipedia articles, sometimes of a contentious or questionable nature. The BBC quoted a Wikimedia spokesman who praised the tool: "We really appreciate the transparency and the scanner actually brings this to another level.Wikipedia Scanners can prevent organizations or individuals from editing articles that they are not supposed to do."
The WikiScanner story is also covered by The Independent, which states that many "censorship interventions" by editors with various interests on various articles on Wikipedia have been found:
[Wikipedia] is hailed as a breakthrough in the democratization of knowledge. But the online encyclopedia has since been hijacked by troops who decide that certain best things are not known... Now a website designed to monitor editorial changes made on Wikipedia has found thousands of self-serving editions and tracks them to sources original. It has become very embarrassing for the forces of rotating political physicians and revisionists of companies who believe their censorship intervention has escaped attention.
Not everyone praises WikiScanner as a success for Wikipedia. Oliver Kamm, in the column for The Times , even argues that:
The WikiScanner is therefore an important development in dropping a damaging influence on our intellectual life. Critics of the web condemn the media as an amateur cult. Wikipedia is worse than that; this is a secret lobbying province. The most constructive course is to stand on the edge and scoff at its pretensions.
WikiScanner only reveals a conflict of interest when the editor does not have a Wikipedia account and their IP address is used instead. Edits of interest conflicts by editors with accounts are not detected, because they are anonymous to everyone - except a handful of the special Wikipedia admins.
Coverage
Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which says its general nature leads, without any conscious intention, to the dissemination of various prejudices. Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on small errors, are trivial, factual in the Wikipedia article, there are also concerns about large-scale, perhaps unintentional effects of increased influence and the use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels. In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine (London), the philosopher Martin Cohen framed the "monopoly" of Wikipedia with "all the prejudices and ignorance of its creator," which he described as "youthful." "The taxi driver's perspective Cohen's argument, however, finds serious conclusions in this situation:" To control the sources of reference that people use is to control the way people understand the world. Wikipedia may have a benign face, even trivial, but beneath it there may be a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought. "The freedom is undermined by what it sees as important in Wikipedia," not your source but 'community support'. "
Critics also show a tendency to cover topics with details that are not proportional to their interests. For example, Stephen Colbert once mocked Wikipedia for having a "longer entry" on lightsabers than on 'printing press'. "In an interview with The Guardian , Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of the EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica , notes:
People write about things they are interested in, and so many subjects are not covered; and news events covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times its length in Chinese art, and the entry at Coronation Street is twice as long as the article about Tony Blair.
This critical approach has been solved as "Wikigroaning", a term coined by Jon Hendren of the Something Awful website. In the game, two articles (preferably with a similar name) are compared: one about a recognized serious or classic subject and the other about popular topics or current events. The advocates of widespread inclusion criteria have stated that the coverage of pop culture encyclopedias does not impose spatial limits on more serious subject coverage (see "Non-paper wiki"). As Ivor Tossell notes:
That Wikipedia is full of useless arcana (and do you know, by the way, that the article on "Debate" is shorter than the part that weighs on the relative merits of the 1978 and 2003 Battlestar Galactica versions?) Not defeats it: Because it can grow indefinitely, articles ridiculous does not rob space seriously.
Wikipedia has been accused of lack of completeness due to its voluntary nature, and reflects the systemic bias of its contributors. Former editor-in-chief of Nupedia, Larry Sanger, stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (beyond the interests of most contributors), the project credibility is very uneven." In the editorial of GamesRadar, columnist Charlie Barrat juxtaposed Wikipedia coverage on video game related topics with smaller content on topics that have greater real-world significance, such as God, World War II, and former US presidents.
Wikipedia has been praised for allowing articles to be updated or made in response to current events. Its editors also argue that, as a website, Wikipedia can include articles on more subjects than a print encyclopaedia can.
A 2011 study reported evidence of cultural bias in Wikipedia articles about famous people in both the English and Polish Wikipedia. These biases include those relating to US and Polish cultures in each of the Wikipedia languages, as well as the prejudices of pro- AS.S./supplies on both languages.
Notability from article topic
The Wikipedia notation guide, which is used by editors to determine whether the subject is worthy of having his own article, and its application, is the subject of much criticism. Nicholson Baker considers the standard of arbitrary notation and is essentially unsolvable:
There are quires, reams, bal controversies about what constitutes notability on Wikipedia: no one will cope.
Criticizing "deletionists", Baker later wrote:
However, many good jobs - verifiable, informative, oddly weird brains - are being removed from this infinite and limitless accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost class-based idea of ​​the type of curiosity as in-now encyclopedia will be satisfactory in the coming years. [...] It's harder to fix something already written, or write something completely new, especially now because so many World Encyclopedic fruits that are sanctioned have long been picked. There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who enjoy ruining and making fun of people's work - even laughing in unusual "Engrish" places. They poked an article full of warnings and required referral notes and product deletions until the topic disappeared.
Other deletionist criticisms are: "The more difficult it is to make successful edits, override the average user, slower growth - all the advantages of the removal approach."
Complaining that his own biography was on the verge of elimination in the absence of a notation, Timothy Noah argued that:
The Wikipedia notation policy resembles US immigration policy before 9/11: strict rules, spotty enforcement. To become famous, the Wikipedia topic should be "the subject of some non-trivial published works from reliable and independent sources of subjects and each other." Although I have written or quoted in such works, I can not say that I have been the subject. And do not you know, some famous policemen drove past my bio and pulled me. Unless I became famous in a hurry - win the Nobel Peace Prize? Prove that I am an Anna Nicole Smith baby girl? - a "sysop" (a volunteer technician) will delete my Wikipedia page. It's straight from Philip K. Dick.
In the same article, Noah mentioned that Pulitzer Prize-winning author Stacy Schiff was not considered important enough for Wikipedia entries before he wrote an extensive New Yorker article on Wikipedia itself.
A 2014 study found no correlation between the characteristics of the given Wikipedia page about academic and academic notation as determined by the number of citations. The metrics for each Wikipedia page are checked including the length, number of links to pages from other articles, and the number of edits made to the page. The study also found that Wikipedia does not include a very famous ISI citing researchers correctly.
liberal bias
According to Jimmy Wales: "The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian etc. If the average is important, and because the nature of the wiki software (no voting) is almost certainly not, I would say that the Wikipedia community is a bit more liberal than the US population on average, as our global and international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the US population There are no data or surveys to support it. "A number of conservative political commentators have argued that Wikipedia coverage is influenced by liberal bias. Andrew Schlafly created the Conservapedia because he found Wikipedia "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American" as it often uses English spelling and coverage of topics such as creationism and the effects of Christianity on the Renaissance. In 2007, an article in The Christian Post criticized Wikipedia's coverage of intelligent design, saying it was biased and hypocritical. Lawrence Solomon of National Review states that Wikipedia articles on topics such as global warming, smart design, and Roe v. Wade tilts in support of the liberal view.
In the September 2010 conservative weekly edition of the Human Events, Rowan Scarborough presented criticism over Wikipedia's coverage of prominent American politicians in the near-term elections as proof of systemic liberal bias. Scarborough compared biographies of opponents of the liberals and conservatives in the Senate race in the primary of the Alaska Republic and the elections
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments