This link has been bookmarked by 43 people . It was first bookmarked on 19 Jul 2006, by MaX MaX.
-
21 May 15
-
13 Jul 14
-
wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.
-
13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field,
-
-
03 Dec 13
Brendan Murphynews article telling us how researchers have determined the reliablility of wikipedia
-
11 Nov 13
-
In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.
-
-
15 Sep 13
-
Wikipedia survives research test
-
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
-
But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
-
conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.
-
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
-
Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia,"
-
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
-
We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good,"
-
-
23 Jun 13
dan ruff"The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows."
-
-
reliability
-
<!-- E IIMA --> <!-- S SF --> The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.reliability -
reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.
-
-
16 Jun 13
Shayla WeiseBBC is a credible, but secondary source website, but every search I came up with for this fact is the same.
-
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.
-
It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.
-
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
-
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
-
-
03 Dec 12
-
n order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.
"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.
-
-
22 May 12
-
11 Feb 12
-
26 Sep 11
-
26 Jul 11
-
07 Jun 11
-
09 May 11
-
22 Apr 11
-
28 Feb 11
-
11 Feb 11
Matthew Baughman"."
Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.
The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.
Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.
Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. " -
17 Dec 10
-
12 Nov 10
-
John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability
-
It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.
-
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
-
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
-
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
-
The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings;
-
"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."
-
-
20 Jul 10
-
21 Apr 10
-
17 Apr 10
-
11 Mar 10
-
24 Jan 10
j wisnouseComparison of Wikipedia to Britannica- shows the validity rates for various concepts
-
05 Dec 09
-
29 Oct 09
-
30 Sep 09
-
24 Oct 08
Michael HurleyThe free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
-
29 Sep 08
-
02 Jul 08
-
17 Apr 08
-
29 May 07
-
25 Apr 07
-
20 Apr 07
-
15 Dec 05
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.