[WikiEN-l] Three cheers for Wikipedia's cancer info (or two and a half)

[Andrew Gray]

On 1 June 2010 23:06, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is the fundamental issue of rapidly changing content; a
> snapshot analysis will never give you a good grasp of an article (or
> all of Wikipedia's) general reliability, because any article can be
> perfectly accurate in one minute and horribly misleading in another.
> Any article about Wikipedia's reliability as a source for key
> information should have that as a caveat.

We often state this, but I'd be intrigued to know how true it is on
average. Have there been any recent studies on the volatility of the
quality of (non-current-event) articles?

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk