Global Information Lookup Global Information

Reliability of Wikipedia information


Article instability and susceptibility to cognitive biases are two potential problem areas in a crowdsourced work like Wikipedia.

The reliability of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition, has been questioned and tested. Wikipedia is written and edited by volunteer editors who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. The reliability of the project has been tested statistically through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in its editing process.[1] The online encyclopedia has been criticized for its factual unreliability, principally regarding its content, presentation, and editorial processes. Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results. Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; it has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.[2][3][4]

A South American coati. In July 2008, a 17-year-old student added an invented nickname to the Wikipedia article coati as a private joke, calling them "Brazilian aardvarks". The false information lasted for six years and was propagated by hundreds of websites, several newspapers, and even a few books published by university presses.[5][6]

Select assessments of its reliability have examined how quickly vandalism—content perceived by editors to constitute false or misleading information—is removed. Two years after the project was started, in 2004, an IBM study found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects".[7][8] The inclusion of false or fabricated content has, at times, lasted for years on Wikipedia due to its volunteer editorship.[9][10] Its editing model facilitates multiple systemic biases, namely: selection bias, inclusion bias, participation bias, and group-think bias. The majority of the encyclopedia is written by male editors, leading to a gender bias in coverage, and the make up of the editing community has prompted concerns about racial bias, spin bias, corporate bias, and national bias, among others.[11][12][13] An ideological bias on Wikipedia has also been identified on both conscious and subconscious levels. A series of studies from Harvard Business School in 2012 and 2014 found Wikipedia "significantly more biased" than Encyclopædia Britannica but attributed the finding more to the length of the online encyclopedia as opposed to slanted editing.[14][15]

Instances of non-neutral or conflict-of-interest editing and the use of Wikipedia for "revenge editing" has attracted attention to false, biased, or defamatory content in articles, especially biographies of living people.[16][17] Articles on less technical subjects, such as the social sciences, humanities, and culture, have been known to deal with misinformation cycles, cognitive biases, coverage discrepancies, and editor disputes. The online encyclopedia does not guarantee the validity of its information. It is seen as a valuable "starting point" for researchers when they pass over content to examine the listed references, citations, and sources. Academics suggest reviewing reliable sources when assessing the quality of articles.[18][19]

Its coverage of medical and scientific articles such as pathology,[20] toxicology,[21] oncology,[22] pharmaceuticals,[23] and psychiatry[24] were compared to professional and peer-reviewed sources in a 2005 Nature study.[25] A year later Encyclopædia Britannica disputed the Nature study, whose authors, in turn, replied with a further rebuttal.[26][27] Concerns regarding readability and the overuse of technical language were raised in studies published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2011),[28] Psychological Medicine (2012),[24] and European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2014);[29] however, Simple English Wikipedia serves as a simplified version of articles to make complex articles more accessible to the layperson on a given topic in Basic English. Wikipedia's popularity, mass readership, and free accessibility has led the encyclopedia to command a substantial second-hand cognitive authority across the world.[30][31][nb 1]

  1. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (5 December 2005). "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 7 September 2014. Retrieved 23 February 2017.
  2. ^ "Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher". The Economist. January 9, 2021. Archived from the original on January 8, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2021.
  3. ^ Cooke, Richard (February 17, 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Archived from the original on January 10, 2021. Retrieved October 13, 2020.
  4. ^ "Happy Birthday, Wikipedia". The Economist. January 9, 2021. Archived from the original on January 8, 2021. Retrieved February 16, 2022.
  5. ^ Randall, Eric (May 19, 2014). "How a raccoon became an aardvark". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on December 29, 2016. Retrieved November 24, 2016.
  6. ^ Kolbe, Andreas (January 16, 2017). "Happy birthday: Jimbo Wales' sweet 16 Wikipedia fails. From aardvark to Bicholim, the encylopedia [sic] of things that never were". The Register. Archived from the original on July 8, 2017. Retrieved June 4, 2017.
  7. ^ Fernanda B. Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Kushal Dave: Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations Archived January 25, 2006, at the Wayback Machine. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 575–582, Vienna 2004, ISBN 1-58113-702-8
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference History flow: results was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference TimesFrenchWPHoax was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference SeigenthalerUSAToday was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Torres, Nicole (June 2, 2016). "Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia?". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Archived from the original on June 17, 2020. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
  12. ^ Cassano, Jay (January 29, 2015). "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?". Fast Company. Archived from the original on May 10, 2015. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
  13. ^ Cooke, Richard (January 2, 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Archived from the original on January 10, 2021. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
  14. ^ Frick, Walter (December 3, 2014). "Wikipedia Is More Biased Than Britannica, but Don't Blame the Crowd". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Archived from the original on June 26, 2020. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  15. ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (January 1, 2012). "Is Wikipedia Biased?". American Economic Review. 103. Harvard Business School. Archived from the original on December 30, 2019. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
  16. ^ Leonard, Andrew (17 May 2013). "Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia". Salon. Archived from the original on 31 May 2016. Retrieved 4 June 2016.
  17. ^ Pinsker, Joe (11 August 2015). "The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 1 June 2016. Retrieved 4 June 2016.
  18. ^ Petiška, Eduard; Moldan, Bedřich (December 9, 2019). "Indicator of quality for environmental articles on Wikipedia at the higher education level". Journal of Information Science. 47 (2): 269–280. doi:10.1177/0165551519888607. ISSN 0165-5515. S2CID 214401940.
  19. ^ Harrison, Stephen (March 19, 2020). "The Coronavirus Is Stress-Testing Wikipedia's Systems—and Editors". Slate Magazine. Archived from the original on April 18, 2020. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
  20. ^ Wood, A; Struthers, K (2010). "Pathology education, Wikipedia and the Net generation". Medical Teacher. 32 (7): 618–620. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2010.497719. PMID 20653388. We have identified Wikipedia as an informative and accurate source for Pathology education and believe that Wikipedia is potentially an important learning tool for of the 'Net Generation'.
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Tox09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Leithner, A; Maurer-Ertl, W; Glehr, M; Friesenbichler, J; Leithner, K; Windhager, R (July–August 2010). "Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 17 (4): 373–4. doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.004507. PMC 2995655. PMID 20595302.
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference Drug08 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ a b Reavley, N. J.; MacKinnon, A. J.; Morgan, A. J.; Alvarez-Jimenez, M.; Hetrick, S. E.; Killackey, E.; Nelson, B.; Purcell, R.; Yap, M. B. H.; Jorm, A. F. (2011). "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: A comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources". Psychological Medicine. 42 (8): 1753–1762. doi:10.1017/S003329171100287X. hdl:11343/59260. PMID 22166182. S2CID 13329595.
  25. ^ Giles, J. (2005). "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head: Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries". Nature. 438 (7070): 900–1. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..900G. doi:10.1038/438900a. PMID 16355180. The study (which was not in itself peer-reviewed) was cited in many news articles such as this: "Wikipedia survives research test". BBC News. BBC. December 15, 2005. Archived from the original on August 7, 2012. Retrieved July 18, 2006.
  26. ^ Nature (March 30, 2006). "Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica". Nature.com. Archived from the original on November 5, 2006. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
  27. ^ Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. Archived July 9, 2016, at the Wayback Machine Encyclopædia Britannica, March 2006
  28. ^ Rajagopalan, M. S.; Khanna, V. K.; Leiter, Y.; Stott, M.; Showalter, T. N.; Dicker, A. P.; Lawrence, Y. R. (2011). "Patient-Oriented Cancer Information on the Internet: A Comparison of Wikipedia and a Professionally Maintained Database". Journal of Oncology Practice. 7 (5): 319–323. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000209. PMC 3170066. PMID 22211130.
  29. ^ Azer, S. A. (2014). "Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia". European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 26 (2): 155–63. doi:10.1097/MEG.0000000000000003. PMID 24276492. S2CID 7760287.
  30. ^ Barnett, David (February 17, 2018). "Can we trust Wikipedia? 1.4 billion people can't be wrong". The Independent. Archived from the original on February 11, 2019. Retrieved July 15, 2021.
  31. ^ Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Inside the Brutal, Petty War Over Donald Trump's Wikipedia Page". Slate. Archived from the original on June 15, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2020.


Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

and 25 Related for: Reliability of Wikipedia information

Request time (Page generated in 0.913 seconds.)

Reliability of Wikipedia

Last Update:

reliability of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition, has been questioned and tested. Wikipedia is...

Word Count : 24208

Wikipedia

Last Update:

the Global South (Eurocentrism).[failed verification] While the reliability of Wikipedia was frequently criticized in the 2000s, it has improved over time...

Word Count : 25857

English Wikipedia

Last Update:

The English Wikipedia is the primary English-language edition of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. It was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on January...

Word Count : 3801

List of films about Wikipedia

Last Update:

about Wikipedia directed by IJsbrand van Veelen which was originally shown on Backlight. The documentary examines the reliability of Wikipedia, and the...

Word Count : 540

Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident

Last Update:

questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content that lack the legal accountability of traditional newspapers...

Word Count : 2699

Health information on Wikipedia

Last Update:

information on Wikipedia, and the quality and reliability of the information on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia was estimated in 2014 to hold around 25,000...

Word Count : 6321

Ideological bias on Wikipedia

Last Update:

the encyclopedia's reliability. Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing...

Word Count : 5609

Outline of Wikipedia

Last Update:

of time" as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. Reliability of WikipediaWikipedia is...

Word Count : 5691

List of Wikipedia controversies

Last Update:

media criticism of the reliability of Wikipedia. The incident dates back to May 2005, with the anonymous posting of a hoax Wikipedia article containing...

Word Count : 20805

Wikimedia Foundation

Last Update:

or curate any of the content found on the projects Jackson, Jasper (February 12, 2017). "'We always look for reliability': why Wikipedia's editors cut out...

Word Count : 11064

Academic studies about Wikipedia

Last Update:

the fact that Wikipedia's database can be downloaded without help from the site owner. Research topics have included the reliability of the encyclopedia...

Word Count : 7909

German Wikipedia

Last Update:

The German Wikipedia (German: Deutschsprachige Wikipedia) is the German-language edition of Wikipedia, a free and publicly editable online encyclopedia...

Word Count : 6095

Vandalism on Wikipedia

Last Update:

death of Henry Kissinger the article on him was vandalized saying that he was in Hell. Internet portal Society portal Wikipedia portal Reliability of Wikipedia...

Word Count : 4133

Criticism of Wikipedia

Last Update:

and uneven policy application. The reliability of Wikipedia is often questioned. In Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge (2010), journalist...

Word Count : 18173

Site reliability engineering

Last Update:

Site reliability engineering (SRE) is a set of principles and practices that applies aspects of software engineering to IT infrastructure and operations...

Word Count : 1391

History of Wikipedia

Last Update:

office tried to change his Wikipedia entry but questioned the reliability of the encyclopedia. "Gutknecht joins Wikipedia tweakers". Minneapolis-St. Paul...

Word Count : 21683

Bengali Wikipedia

Last Update:

The Bengali Wikipedia or Bangla Wikipedia (Bengali: বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়া) is the Bengali language edition of Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. Launched...

Word Count : 2501

List of political editing incidents on Wikipedia

Last Update:

List of Wikipedia controversies Criticism of Wikipedia Ideological bias on Wikipedia Reliability of Wikipedia Vandalism on Wikipedia Wikipedia bots Wikipedia...

Word Count : 4185

Essjay controversy

Last Update:

the Essjay incident to set the context. Internet portal Reliability of Wikipedia List of Wikipedia controversies On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog...

Word Count : 3902

Finnish Wikipedia

Last Update:

the reliability of the Finnish Wikipedia was investigated by the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat. The researchers used experts to evaluate quality of randomly...

Word Count : 299

Wikipedia community

Last Update:

The Wikipedia community, collectively and individually known as Wikipedians, is an online community of volunteers who create and maintain Wikipedia, an...

Word Count : 2943

WikiScanner

Last Update:

them stop and think." Reliability of Wikipedia Seigenthaler incident, one of several scandals involving anonymous hoaxes on Wikipedia WHOIS Wiki-Watch Biuso...

Word Count : 2319

Gender bias on Wikipedia

Last Update:

Gender bias on Wikipedia is a term used to describe various gender-related disparities on Wikipedia, particularly the overrepresentation of men among both...

Word Count : 8075

Circular reporting

Last Update:

Situation that reinforces beliefs by repetition inside a closed system Reliability of Wikipedia Rumor – Unverified message or story Self-reference – Sentence,...

Word Count : 2240

Guarani Wikipedia

Last Update:

of Leipzig has elaborated a corpus based on Guarani Wikipedia. History of Wikipedia Reliability of Wikipedia Wikipedia community Co.wiki "Wikipedia en...

Word Count : 266

PDF Search Engine © AllGlobal.net