The study that Erik refers to here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071565.html was seriously flawed.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/bal-dont-trust-wikipedia-on-a...
There is also the article I wrote for the 'Other Place' here http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/05/04/the-sum-of-the-parts , also on the subject of indiscriminate copying and pasting from older reference sources.
The point is that any study of Wikipedia article 'reliability' should be careful about the provenance of the article. The Wycliffe is barely more than a copy and paste of an old (and somewhat outdated) source.
On 08/05/2014 09:24, edward wrote:
The study that Erik refers to here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071565.html was seriously flawed.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/bal-dont-trust-wikipedia-on-a...
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:12 AM, geni <geniice at gmail.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> wrote:
/ On 8 May 2014 01:00, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> wrote:
/>/ />/ > As for study design, I'd suggest you begin with a *random* sample of />/ > frequently-viewed Wikipedia articles in a given topic area (e.g. those />/ > within the purview of WikiProject Medicine), have them assessed by an />/ > independent panel of academic experts, and let them publish their />/ results. />/ > />/ > />/ No control, no calibration. Without those you can't really be sure what />/ you've measured. While academic attitudes to Wikipedia may be of some />/ interest they are not a proxy for quality. />/ / "While academic attitudes to Wikipedia may be of some interest they are not a proxy for quality."
I don't understand this. I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't understand. How would an attitude be a 'proxy' for quality?
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
"While academic attitudes to Wikipedia may be of some interest they are not a proxy for quality."
I don't understand this. I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't understand. How would an attitude be a 'proxy' for quality?
I think what Geni was expressing there was a fear that experts might rate an article badly because they do not like Wikipedia, i.e. that their ratings might reflect prejudice rather than an honest scholarly assessment of the article content.
I guess that's a form of AGF.
Well personal bias is always potentially a problem. The Oxford study tried to avoid this by 'blind' review. They changed the format of the Britannica and the Wikipedia articles so it was not obvious which was which. The problem with the study, however, was that they did not realise one of the articles they had selected was Britannica 1911 clone, so they were comparing a 100 year version of Britannica with a modern Britannica. On a separate note, the fact they found them comparable was worrying (scholarship on the Middle Ages has been completely transformed over the last century, no one from Oxford spotted that?). And there were a separate bunch of errors that they missed entirely. Were the errors I spotted simply my 'bias' (I am not a fan of Wikipedia, true)? I don't think so: I was aiming to pick up simple referencing and factual errors only, nothing fancy.
Ed
On 08/05/2014 10:14, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
"While academic attitudes to Wikipedia may be of some interest they are not a proxy for quality."
I don't understand this. I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't understand. How would an attitude be a 'proxy' for quality?
I think what Geni was expressing there was a fear that experts might rate an article badly because they do not like Wikipedia, i.e. that their ratings might reflect prejudice rather than an honest scholarly assessment of the article content.
I guess that's a form of AGF. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org