Wiki - Revision history

Thekohser: I hope I am helping here. This seems to be a stagnant duplicate of the page I'm redirecting it to.

2010-01-10T08:22:47Z

I hope I am helping here. This seems to be a stagnant duplicate of the page I'm redirecting it to.

Show changes

140.247.249.217 at 08:27, 2 December 2009

2009-12-02T08:27:20Z

Show changes

140.247.249.217 at 08:14, 2 December 2009

2009-12-02T08:14:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:14, 2 December 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Full Draft of Memo on DropIO]~~


	==BIRTH & GROWTH OF WIKIPEDIA==		==BIRTH & GROWTH OF WIKIPEDIA==

Line 34:		Line 31:
	==ACADEMIC STUDIES OF WIKIPEDIA==		==ACADEMIC STUDIES OF WIKIPEDIA==

	Academic studies of Wikipedia have mainly used Wikipedia as a tool to analyze other phenomenon. The users on Wikipedia provide a large database of subjects which the researchers use to test their hypotheses or as a social network which can be manipulated and observed. The majority of studies focus on either semantic relatedness <ref ~~name="Semantic"~~>[http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-223.pdf], ~~M Strube et al, WikiRelate!~~ Computer Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2006); E Gabrilovich et al, [http://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-259.pdf Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia-Based Explicit Semantic Analysis](2007) ; Zesch et al, Analyzing and Accessing WIkipedia as a Lexical Semantic Resource, Data Structures for Linguistic Resources (2007).</ref> or online coordination and conflict resolution techniques.<ref name="Coordination">[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.6907&rep=rep1&type=pdf~~],Viegas et al,~~ Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007); Kittur et al, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240698 He Says, She Says; Conflict and Coordination in Wikipedia], Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Computing (2007) ; D Wilkonson & B Huberman, [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0702140 Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia, Computers and Society], arXiv:cs/0702140v1 [cs.DL] (2007).</ref>		Academic studies of Wikipedia have mainly used Wikipedia as a tool to analyze other phenomenon. The users on Wikipedia provide a large database of subjects which the researchers use to test their hypotheses or as a social network which can be manipulated and observed. The majority of studies focus on either semantic relatedness<ref>M Strube et al,[http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-223.pdf WikiRelate!], Computer Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2006)</ref><ref>E Gabrilovich et al, [http://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-259.pdf Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia-Based Explicit Semantic Analysis](2007)</ref><ref>Zesch et al, Analyzing and Accessing WIkipedia as a Lexical Semantic Resource, Data Structures for Linguistic Resources (2007).</ref>or online coordination and conflict resolution techniques.<ref name="Coordination">Viegas et al, [[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.6907&rep=rep1&type=pdf Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia], Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007)</ref><ref name ="Kittur">Kittur et al, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240698 He Says, She Says; Conflict and Coordination in Wikipedia], Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Computing (2007)</ref><ref name="Wilkonson">D Wilkonson & B Huberman, [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0702140 Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia, Computers and Society], arXiv:cs/0702140v1 [cs.DL] (2007).</ref>

	==DIFFICULT PROBLEMS==		==DIFFICULT PROBLEMS==
Line 54:		Line 51:

	====Inequality:====		====Inequality:====
	Within the Wikipedia contributing community, there has been a rapid divide between "contributors" and "editors", with editors determining much of the style, tone and occasionally content of articles. One study found that âelite usersâ were pushing out new contributors, with 25% of occasional wiki editorsâ changes being erased or reverted by established editors. This was up from 10% in 2003. ~~See~~ [http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2008.333 ~~here~~].		Within the Wikipedia contributing community, there has been a rapid divide between "contributors" and "editors", with editors determining much of the style, tone and occasionally content of articles. One study found that âelite usersâ were pushing out new contributors, with 25% of occasional wiki editorsâ changes being erased or reverted by established editors. This was up from 10% in 2003.<ref>[http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2008.333 Editors as Elite Users]</ref>.

140.247.249.217 at 08:09, 2 December 2009

2009-12-02T08:09:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:09, 2 December 2009
Line 100:		Line 100:
	\| url = http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A \| title = The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks \| publisher = TCS Daily \| accessdate = 2008-10-12}}</ref>		\| url = http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A \| title = The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks \| publisher = TCS Daily \| accessdate = 2008-10-12}}</ref>

	Andrew Orlowski accuses Wikipedia of being a âvanity exerciseâ for calling itself an encyclopedia, and writes that the use of the term "encyclopedia" to describe Wikipedia may lead users into believing it is more reliable than it may be. He points out (describing a libel case against Wikipedia) that âIf what we today know as "Wikipedia" had started life as something called, let's say - "Jimbo's Big Bag O'Trivia" - we doubt if it would be the problem it has become.â The public begins to expect trustworthy information from Wikipedia and instead gets a âking-sized cocktailâ of bureaucracy and âspontaneous graffiti.â ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/page2.html\|title=Who's responsible for Wikipedia?\|last=Orlowski\|first=Andrew \|date=2005-12-12\|publisher=The Register\|accessdate=2009-06-30}}</ref>		Andrew Orlowski accuses Wikipedia of being a âvanity exerciseâ for calling itself an encyclopedia, and writes that the use of the term "encyclopedia" to describe Wikipedia may lead users into believing it is more reliable than it may be. He points out (describing a libel case against Wikipedia) that âIf what we today know as "Wikipedia" had started life as something called, let's say - "Jimbo's Big Bag O'Trivia" - we doubt if it would be the problem it has become.â The public begins to expect trustworthy information from Wikipedia and instead gets a âking-sized cocktailâ of bureaucracy and âspontaneous graffiti.â <ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/page2.html\|title=Who's responsible for Wikipedia?\|last=Orlowski\|first=Andrew \|date=2005-12-12\|publisher=The Register\|accessdate=2009-06-30}}</ref>

	Middlebury College went so far as to [http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html?pr=jah931 ban the citation of Wikipedia] in papers in its history department. On this note, however, consider the fact that Wikipedia itself states in its guidelines that Wikipedia is not suitable for academic citation because Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.<ref name=Duke>{{cite web\| url=http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/03/28/News/Several.Colleges.Push.To.Ban.Wikipedia.As.Resource-2809247.shtml\|title=Several colleges push to ban Wikipedia as resource\|publisher=Duke Chronicle\|date=2007-03-28\|author=Lysa Chen\|accessdate=2007-04-02}}</ref><ref>"[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia]", ''Inside Higher Ed'' (January 26, 2007). Retrieved on January 27, 2007.</ref><ref name=McHenry>		Middlebury College went so far as to [http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html?pr=jah931 ban the citation of Wikipedia] in papers in its history department. On this note, however, consider the fact that Wikipedia itself states in its guidelines that Wikipedia is not suitable for academic citation because Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.<ref name=Duke>{{cite web\| url=http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/03/28/News/Several.Colleges.Push.To.Ban.Wikipedia.As.Resource-2809247.shtml\|title=Several colleges push to ban Wikipedia as resource\|publisher=Duke Chronicle\|date=2007-03-28\|author=Lysa Chen\|accessdate=2007-04-02}}</ref><ref>"[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia]", ''Inside Higher Ed'' (January 26, 2007). Retrieved on January 27, 2007.</ref><ref name=McHenry>
Line 113:		Line 113:
	Kittur, Suh & Chi, Can You Ever Trust a Wiki?: Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM 2008 CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK (2008) 477-480. Abstract at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460639&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=56978117&CFTOKEN=87505552.</ref> The results suggest that surfacing information that is relevant to the stability of the article and patterns of editor behavior can have a significant impact on usersâ trust. This should be considered in conjunction for proposals on color-coding articles by age, editing contribution etc that are being considered to improve article accuracy.		Kittur, Suh & Chi, Can You Ever Trust a Wiki?: Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM 2008 CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK (2008) 477-480. Abstract at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460639&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=56978117&CFTOKEN=87505552.</ref> The results suggest that surfacing information that is relevant to the stability of the article and patterns of editor behavior can have a significant impact on usersâ trust. This should be considered in conjunction for proposals on color-coding articles by age, editing contribution etc that are being considered to improve article accuracy.

			Other suggestions include:

	==~~=Sustainability~~ of ~~Wikimedia Model===~~		*Reputation-based text coloring. Each article could display a button labeled "check text reputation": upon clicking the button, a user would be led to a copy of the page, where the text background color reflects the reputation of the author of each portion of text, as well as the reputation of authors who vetted the text, editing the page while leaving the text in place. The appeal of this method is that reputation is displayed in an anonymous way, associated to the article text. This avoids placing blame or praise directly on the authors: the impersonal character of this feedback could be well-suited to a collaborative forum such as the Wikipedia.<ref>T. Cross. Puppy smoothies: Improving the reliability of open, collaborative wikis. First Monday, 11(9), September 2006.</ref>
			*Restricting edits. Highly controversial articles could be protected, so that only authors with sufficiently high reputation are able to edit them. This is currently employed by Wikipedia as part of its [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_policy Protection Policy] but it could be expanded.
			*Reputation-based alert system. Wikipedia Editors keep a watchful eye on most controversial articles, and in fact, on a large portion of the Wikipedia, improving content and undoing poor-quality revisions. A reputation system could be used to alert them whenever a crucial or controversial article is modified by a low-reputation author. A reputation system provides an incentive for high-quality contributions. A reputation system could provide an additional incentive for authors to provide high quality contributions to the Wikipedia.<ref>P. Resnick, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, and K. Kiwabara. Reputation systems. Comm. ACM, 43(12):45{48, 2000. C. Dellarocas. The digitization of word-ofmouth: Promises and challenges of online reputation systems. Management Science, October 2003.</ref>
			*Content-Driven Reputation system. Study by Adler & de Alfaro proposes a content-driven reputation system for Wikipedia to allow readers to determine reliability of an article based on the reputation of the contributors and editors. The reputation of authors would be based on how their contribution to Wikipedia fares: the longer an article or edit remains un-edited or un-altered, the better the authorâs reputation. This can be, however, much less accurate than a user-driven reputation system. Author contributions can be deleted for a variety of reasons, including reorganizations and thorough rewrites of the articles. Alder & Alfaro address these issues in that the reputation of authors whose edits are reverted to the original text suffers; reputation of authors whose edits are further refined later on do not suffer.<ref>B. Thomas Adler & Luca de Alfaro, [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=luca_de_alfaro A Content-Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia].</ref>
			*Zeng et al. also propose a mechanism wherein the revision history of the Wikipedia article is used to compute a trust value for the article.<ref>H. Zeng, M.A. Alhoussaini, L. Ding, R. Fikes, and D.L. McGuinness. Computing trust from revision history. In Intl. Conf. on Privacy, Security and Trust, 2006.</ref>
			*It could also prove interesting to explore combinations of user and content reputation devices.

	~~====Technologically====~~

	*Technologically: how have a platform that both supports the numerous users who regularly access Wikimedia ~~and still serves the less tech savvy contributor base~~		===Sustainability of Wikimedia Model===
	*lack of features can in itself be a feature

			The strategy discussions at Wikimania 2009 raised the question of whether Wikimedia, as it stands today, is sustainable: both from a technological and organizational standpoint.

	~~====Organizationally====~~		*Is a platform that both supports numerous users and serves less tech savvy contributors possible?
			*How can Wikimedia ensure its financial stability?
	*~~Organizationally: financial sustainability and organizational models raise concerns about generating~~ a ~~renewable~~ and ~~reliable source of revenue and how to adapt to different roles in the future~~		*How can Wikimedia re-structure its institutional organization to allow oversight without creating too many levels of hierarchy such that the bureaucracy becomes ungainly?

	*~~If the number of administrators, retaining a certain degree of~~ institutional ~~authority, continues to grow over time, will a new complexity make it necessary~~ to ~~increase the number~~ of ~~hierarchical layers in~~ the ~~structure and discourage participation~~? ~~This issue will need to be resolved at some point in the future.~~

	Emerging Strategic Priorities in this area include:		Emerging Strategic Priorities in this area include:
Line 132:		Line 135:
	**Identify roles volunteers are best suited to perform and what are the most effective uses of paid staff		**Identify roles volunteers are best suited to perform and what are the most effective uses of paid staff
	**Create alliances and partnerships with other institutions and organizations to advance the mission: also, what are the necessary preconditions to such alliances? How support similar projects?		**Create alliances and partnerships with other institutions and organizations to advance the mission: also, what are the necessary preconditions to such alliances? How support similar projects?



	===Expansion & Questions of Scope===		===Expansion & Questions of Scope===
			Since the founding of Wikipedia in 2001, there has been substantial growth in user-generated online content.<ref>Geist, M. Mapping the digital future. OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 254 (2006), 36â37.</ref><ref>Dunn, J., Byrd, D., Notess, M., Riley, J., and Scherle, R. Variations2: Retrieving and using music in an academic setting. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (Aug. 2006) 53â58.</ref> According to one Nielsen rating, user-generated content drives 50% of the top fastest growing internet brands.<ref>Nielsen NetRating. [www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/PR_060810.PDF User-generated content drives half of U.S. top 10 fastest growing Web brands], (Aug. 10, 2006).</ref> Consider just the popularity of collaborative site such as YouTube, Flickr, or Slashdot.org. Traditional media outlets such as BBC News.com have also added areas for collaboration.<ref>Eltringham, M. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4900000/newsid_4900400/4900444.stm Citizen journalists challenge BBC], BBC NewsWatch (2006).</ref> User-generated content appears to be the way forward â but is Wikipedia a good model upon which to base that progress? Can the system used for Wikipedia be applied other scenarios?


	==References==		==References==
	<references/>		<references/>

140.247.249.217 at 07:59, 2 December 2009

2009-12-02T07:59:37Z

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 It is important to distinguish between concerns about the actual quality of Wikipedia articles and concerns about the perceived quality of the articles.  The one should be approached as a contributor and technical problem and the other should be addressed as a publicity problem.  Also, the concept of quality is intentionally broad and includes everything from accuracy of information to degree of citation provided to the quality of images and prose.
 ====Actual Quality of Wikipedia====
@@ Line 89: / Line 79: @@
 However, Wikipedia may not be as reliable in technical or specialized fields. A peer-reviewed 2008 study<ref>{{cite journal |author= Clauson KA, Polen HH, Kamel Boulos MN, Dzenowagis JH |title= Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug Iinformation in Wikipedia |journal= Ann Pharmacother |volume= 42|issue= |pages= 1814|year=2008 |pmid=19017825 |doi=10.1345/aph.1L474 |url=http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/aph.1L474v1.pdf |format=PDF |laysource=Reuters |laydate=2008-11-24 |laysummary=http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE4AN7BO20081125}} accessed 25 Sept 09</ref> examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The research team  found few factual errors but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like contraindications and drug interactions. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur." The researchers also compared Wikipedia to Medscape Drug Reference (MDR), by looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, including adverse drug events, dosages, and mechanism of action. They have determined that MDR provided answers to 82.5 percent of the questions, while Wikipedia could only answer 40 percent, and that answers were less likely to be complete for Wikipedia as well. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: "I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]", and he pointed out that drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe.
-Regardless of whether Wikipedia is currently accurate or not, there is always room for improvement.  The actual quality of articles on Wikipedia includes several concerns:
+Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but do not elevate it to the same level as traditional references.  For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced as "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science.  The publisher of Science states that these enhanced perspectives "include hypernotes - which link directly to websites of other relevant information available online - beyond the standard bibliographic references."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI/PDFs/01_D_Perspectives.pdf|title=Perspectives from AAAS|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|author=Yolanda S. George and Shirley S. Malcolm|accessdate=2007-10-27|format=PDF}}</ref>
-#Accuracy of information
+====Improving Wikipedia's Perceived Accuracy====
-##Information citation loops
+One study presented at the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Work explored whether a visualizations system could improve readersâ perceptions of trustworthiness in a wiki by exposing hidden article information.<ref>
-##Vandalism
+Kittur, Suh & Chi, Can You Ever Trust a Wiki?: Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM 2008 CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK (2008) 477-480. Abstract at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460639&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=56978117&CFTOKEN=87505552.</ref> The results suggest that surfacing information that is relevant to the stability of the article and patterns of editor behavior can have a significant impact on usersâ trust.  This should be considered in conjunction for proposals on color-coding articles by age, editing contribution etc that are being considered to improve article accuracy.
 ===Sustainability of Wikimedia Model===

140.247.249.217: /* Actual Quality of Wikipedia */

2009-12-02T07:46:18Z

Actual Quality of Wikipedia

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:46, 2 December 2009
Line 85:		Line 85:
	On March 24, 2006, ''Britannica'' provided a rebuttal of this article, labeling it "fatally flawed",<ref>{{cite news\|title=Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica\|date=March 24, 2006\|work=[[WikiNews]]\|publisher=[[Wikipedia Foundation]]\|url=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Journal_Nature_study_%27fatally_flawed%27%2C_says_Britannica}}</ref> to which ''Nature'' responded.<ref>{{cite web \| title=Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response\|publisher='[[Nature]]''\| date=March 23, 2006\| url=http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf \| accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref> Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that Nature composited parts of different Britannica texts to make a text for review in one case, 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. Nature responded that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia, that in some cases it used excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particular concerns with Nature before publishing its "open letter" rebuttal.		On March 24, 2006, ''Britannica'' provided a rebuttal of this article, labeling it "fatally flawed",<ref>{{cite news\|title=Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica\|date=March 24, 2006\|work=[[WikiNews]]\|publisher=[[Wikipedia Foundation]]\|url=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Journal_Nature_study_%27fatally_flawed%27%2C_says_Britannica}}</ref> to which ''Nature'' responded.<ref>{{cite web \| title=Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response\|publisher='[[Nature]]''\| date=March 23, 2006\| url=http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf \| accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref> Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that Nature composited parts of different Britannica texts to make a text for review in one case, 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. Nature responded that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia, that in some cases it used excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particular concerns with Nature before publishing its "open letter" rebuttal.

	Three subsequent studies--a 2006 web-based survey,<ref>{{cite web \| title=Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness\| publisher=Larry Press, Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University\| date=2006\| url=http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval\| accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref> a 2004 comparison ~~by ''[[c't]]''~~ of ''~~[[Brockhaus Multimedial premium\|~~Brockhaus Multimedial~~]]''~~, ''~~[[Encarta\|~~Microsoft Encarta]]'', and the [[German Wikipedia]], <ref>Michael Kurzidim: Wissenswettstreit. Die kostenlose Wikipedia tritt gegen die MarktfÃ¼hrer Encarta und Brockhaus an, in: [[c't]] 21/2004, October 4, 2004, S. 132-139.</ref> (repeated in 2007 <ref>Dorothee Wiegand: "Entdeckungsreise. Digitale EnzyklopÃ¤dien erklÃ¤ren die Welt." c't 6/2007, March 5, 2007, p. 136-145. Original quote: "Wir haben in den Texten der freien EnzyklopÃ¤die nicht mehr Fehler gefunden als in denen der kommerziellen Konkurrenz"</ref>), and a 2007 review by Australian magazine ''PC Authority''<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/93908,wikipedia-uncovered.aspx/1\|title=''PC Authority'' - 'Wikipedia Uncovered'}}</ref>--concluded that Wikipedia was generally as reliable as other traditional Encyclopedias.		Three subsequent studies--a 2006 web-based survey,<ref>{{cite web \| title=Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness\| publisher=Larry Press, Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University\| date=2006\| url=http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval\| accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref> a 2004 comparison of ''Brockhaus Multimedial, ''Microsoft Encarta'', and the German Wikipedia, <ref>Michael Kurzidim: Wissenswettstreit. Die kostenlose Wikipedia tritt gegen die MarktfÃ¼hrer Encarta und Brockhaus an, in: [[c't]] 21/2004, October 4, 2004, S. 132-139.</ref> (repeated in 2007 <ref>Dorothee Wiegand: "Entdeckungsreise. Digitale EnzyklopÃ¤dien erklÃ¤ren die Welt." c't 6/2007, March 5, 2007, p. 136-145. Original quote: "Wir haben in den Texten der freien EnzyklopÃ¤die nicht mehr Fehler gefunden als in denen der kommerziellen Konkurrenz"</ref>), and a 2007 review by Australian magazine ''PC Authority''<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/93908,wikipedia-uncovered.aspx/1\|title=''PC Authority'' - 'Wikipedia Uncovered'}}</ref>--concluded that Wikipedia was generally as reliable as other traditional Encyclopedias.

	However, Wikipedia may not be as reliable in technical or specialized fields. A peer-reviewed 2008 study<ref>{{cite journal \|author= Clauson KA, Polen HH, Kamel Boulos MN, Dzenowagis JH \|title= Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug Iinformation in Wikipedia \|journal= Ann Pharmacother \|volume= 42\|issue= \|pages= 1814\|year=2008 \|pmid=19017825 \|doi=10.1345/aph.1L474 \|url=http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/aph.1L474v1.pdf \|format=PDF \|laysource=Reuters \|laydate=2008-11-24 \|laysummary=http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE4AN7BO20081125}} accessed 25 Sept 09</ref> examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The research team ~~from [[Nova Southeastern University]]~~ found few factual errors ~~in this set of articles,~~ but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like [[contraindications]] and [[drug interactions]]. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur." The researchers also compared Wikipedia to [[Medscape Drug Reference]] (MDR), by looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, including adverse drug events, dosages, and mechanism of action. They have determined that MDR provided answers to 82.5 percent of the questions, while Wikipedia could only answer 40 percent, and that answers were less likely to be complete for Wikipedia as well. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: "I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]", and he pointed out that drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe.		However, Wikipedia may not be as reliable in technical or specialized fields. A peer-reviewed 2008 study<ref>{{cite journal \|author= Clauson KA, Polen HH, Kamel Boulos MN, Dzenowagis JH \|title= Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug Iinformation in Wikipedia \|journal= Ann Pharmacother \|volume= 42\|issue= \|pages= 1814\|year=2008 \|pmid=19017825 \|doi=10.1345/aph.1L474 \|url=http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/aph.1L474v1.pdf \|format=PDF \|laysource=Reuters \|laydate=2008-11-24 \|laysummary=http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE4AN7BO20081125}} accessed 25 Sept 09</ref> examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The research team found few factual errors but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like contraindications and drug interactions. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur." The researchers also compared Wikipedia to Medscape Drug Reference (MDR), by looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, including adverse drug events, dosages, and mechanism of action. They have determined that MDR provided answers to 82.5 percent of the questions, while Wikipedia could only answer 40 percent, and that answers were less likely to be complete for Wikipedia as well. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: "I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]", and he pointed out that drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe.

140.247.249.217: /* Actual Quality of Wikipedia */

2009-12-02T07:44:09Z

Actual Quality of Wikipedia

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:44, 2 December 2009
Line 73:		Line 73:
	====Actual Quality of Wikipedia====		====Actual Quality of Wikipedia====

	On October 24, 2005, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a panel of experts were asked to critically review seven entries related to their fields.<ref>{{citeweb\|url=http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html\|title=Can you trust Wikipedia?\|publisher=''The Guardian''\|accessdate=2007-10-28}}</ref> One article was deemed to have made "every value judgement... wrong", the others receiving marks from 5 to 8 out of a notional ten. Of the other six articles reviewed and critiqued, the most common criticisms were:		On October 24, 2005, ''The Guardian'' published an article entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a panel of experts were asked to critically review seven entries related to their fields.<ref>{{citeweb\|url=http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html\|title=Can you trust Wikipedia?\|publisher=''The Guardian''\|accessdate=2007-10-28}}</ref> One article was deemed to have made "every value judgement... wrong", the others receiving marks from 5 to 8 out of a notional ten. Of the other six articles reviewed and critiqued, the most common criticisms were:
	# Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)		# Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)
	# Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)		# Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)
Line 81:		Line 81:
	# Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)		# Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)

	''[[Nature ~~(journal)\|Nature]]~~'' reported in 2005 that [[science]] articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those on ''Encyclopedia Britannica'''s web site. Out of 42 articles, only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', although more than a hundred lesser errors and omissions were found in each and Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured."<ref name="GilesJ2005Internet"/>		''Nature'' reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those on ''Encyclopedia Britannica'''s web site. Out of 42 articles, only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', although more than a hundred lesser errors and omissions were found in each and Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured."<ref name="GilesJ2005Internet"/>

	On March 24, 2006, ''Britannica'' provided a rebuttal of this article, labeling it "fatally flawed",<ref>{{cite news\|title=Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica\|date=March 24, 2006\|work=[[WikiNews]]\|publisher=[[Wikipedia Foundation]]\|url=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Journal_Nature_study_%27fatally_flawed%27%2C_says_Britannica}}</ref> to which ''Nature'' responded.<ref>{{cite web \| title=Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response\|publisher='[[Nature]]''\| date=March 23, 2006\| url=http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf \| accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref> Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that Nature composited parts of different Britannica texts to make a text for review in one case, 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. Nature responded that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia, that in some cases it used excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particular concerns with Nature before publishing its "open letter" rebuttal.		On March 24, 2006, ''Britannica'' provided a rebuttal of this article, labeling it "fatally flawed",<ref>{{cite news\|title=Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica\|date=March 24, 2006\|work=[[WikiNews]]\|publisher=[[Wikipedia Foundation]]\|url=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Journal_Nature_study_%27fatally_flawed%27%2C_says_Britannica}}</ref> to which ''Nature'' responded.<ref>{{cite web \| title=Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response\|publisher='[[Nature]]''\| date=March 23, 2006\| url=http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf \| accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref> Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that Nature composited parts of different Britannica texts to make a text for review in one case, 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. Nature responded that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia, that in some cases it used excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particular concerns with Nature before publishing its "open letter" rebuttal.
Line 103:		Line 103:
	#Quality of prose & presentation		#Quality of prose & presentation

	These will each be addressed below with potential solutions for each section.		These will each be addressed below with potential solutions for each section.


	===Sustainability of Wikimedia Model===		===Sustainability of Wikimedia Model===

140.247.249.217: /* Size: */

2009-12-02T07:42:26Z

Size:

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 2 December 2009
Line 48:		Line 48:

	====Size:====		====Size:====
	Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see :[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; "[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."		Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see [http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; or "[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."

	====Identity & Bias:====		====Identity & Bias:====

140.247.249.217: /* Size: */

2009-12-02T07:42:05Z

Size:

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 2 December 2009
Line 48:		Line 48:

	====Size:====		====Size:====
	Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see :[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; "http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."		Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see :[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; "[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."

	====Identity & Bias:====		====Identity & Bias:====

140.247.249.217: /* Size: */

2009-12-02T07:41:50Z

Size:

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:41, 2 December 2009
Line 48:		Line 48:

	====Size:====		====Size:====
	Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see :[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; "http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."		Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see :[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; "http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."

	====Identity & Bias:====		====Identity & Bias:====