Hi research community,

I have been struggling to find a way to present the subject of Wikipedia's quality to newbies for the LearnWiki video series.

On the one hand, I have heard of studies that compare Wikipedia favorably to Britannica, and studies showing that medical students and licensed professionals consult Wikipedia. On the other hand, we have lots of stub articles, and in the August WMF Metrics and Activities meeting we heard that some users are skeptical of the quality of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

I am thinking that quality of an article, as well as quality of Wikipedia as a whole (in varied language editions), could be measured in terms of completeness, verifiability, and neutrality, assuming that measures of those three dimensions are possible.

For completeness, I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Completeness, which has fascinating if somewhat unhelpful descriptions of encyclodynamics and encyclostatics.

Another resource, which may be a bit more helpful, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Statistics.

I believe that there have been studies about vandalism reversions, and the accuracy or inaccuracy of Wikipedia science articles. I am wondering if there have been any more holistic studies of Wikipedia completeness, verifiability, and neutrality, either using sampling methods or using automated tools.

Thanks,

Pine

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l