For sv:wp we only look at quality and reliability (and coverage) only for specific subjects areas. I am very skeptical of the value of a general study as we already know we are awfully weak in many areas, like geographic entities in African countries. Some examples of our findings *Swedish adm unts: 100% or close to for coverage, reliability and quality in articles. Also are we working to establish a close link to Wikidata, to make sure all other version can get the same results in corresponding articles *Birds that are present in Sweden: also here 100% for coverage, reliability and quality in articles. This because of a dedicated, competent and enthusiastic workgroup *Medicin. One of our problem areas. Also it is important to know the Swedish government has since long uphold a very qualified webbbased information base of health related subjects, so we do not want the svwp in any way to be in contradiction of this "official" info. We also found problems with articles developed in the medicin project as they had recommendation of thing like penicilin use that different from what Swedish medicine practise said. We solved this partly buy removing part of this info, but to generalize on this get absurd, make it shorter then quality and reliabilty goes up
So I wonder if you base assumption of studies of "reliability of Wikipedia's content" actually are relevant
Anders
Anthony Cole skrev 2014-05-07 22:17:
Could someone please point me to all the studies the WMF have conducted into the reliability of Wikipedia's content? I'm particularly interested in the medical content, but would also like to look over the others too. Cheers.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole _______________________________________________ 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