 Anonymous Wikipedia entries the most accurate - Brock Press (subscription) |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
| Newsfeed |
 Wed 31st October 2007, 5:07am
Post
#1
|
|
Postmaster General  Group: Bots Posts: 3,272 Joined: Mon 3rd Sep 2007, 9:29pm Member No.: 2,885  |
Anonymous Wikipedia entries the most accurate Brock Press (subscription), Canada -39 minutes ago Hanover, NH - Anonymous users of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia may provide content of comparable quality to that provided by registered users, ... View the article[br] |
   |
 
|
| Eva Destruction |
Wed 31st October 2007, 11:46am
Post
#2
|
 Fat Cat Group: Regulars Posts: 1,735 Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm Member No.: 3,301 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Wed 31st October 2007, 5:07am)  Anonymous Wikipedia entries the most accurate Brock Press (subscription), Canada -39 minutes ago Hanover, NH - Anonymous users of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia may provide content of comparable quality to that provided by registered users, ... View the article[br] I'm less than convinced by this - firstly, the research was on the Dutch & French Wikipedia, which don't have anywhere near the volumes of the "main" English & German Wikipedias. Second, the study just measured how long each contribution stayed up before being reverted/overwritten - it's not taking into account that "the regulars" are more likely to be involved in high-traffic pages. My valid edit to Gordon Brown is less likely to stay up than an anon IP's edits to Peculiaroso, not because my edits are less valid but because more people are working on George Bush. The research also doesn't seem to take into account the difference between contributions by established accounts and single-purpose new accounts. If you go through the contributions of newly created accounts you find a lot of absolutely wretched vani-spamming and point-of-view pushing, but in terms of this research they'd be lumped in with the BrownHairedGirl type editors who have an undoubtedly valid contribution history. I don't think it's any secret that I think Wikipedia has some serious problems, and not enough is being done to address them - but this study seems to be focusing on a problem that doesn't exist while missing the real issues that are damaging WP's credibility. |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd 5 13, 7:54am |