Wiarygodność Wikipedii

Wiarygodność

1. Jim Giles, Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, "Nature" 438 (15 December 2005) [1]
   • "entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team."
   • "among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."
   • "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
   • "The most error-strewn article, that on Dmitry Mendeleev, co-creator of the periodic table, illustrates this. Michael Gordin, a science historian at Princeton University who wrote a 2004 book on Mendeleev, identified 19 errors in Wikipedia and 8 in Britannica."
2. Holtz, P., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2018). Using big data techniques for measuring productive friction in mass collaboration online environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4)
3. Jaron Lanier, Digital Maoizm: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism, Edge 2006, [2]
   • "The collective is more likely to be smart when it isn't defining its own questions, when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree. Under those circumstances, a collective can be smarter than a person."
   • "Every authentic example of collective intelligence that I am aware of also shows how that collective was guided or inspired by well-meaning individuals. These people focused the collective and in some cases also corrected for some of the common hive mind failure modes. The balancing of influence between people and collectives is the heart of the design of democracies, scientific communities, and many other long-standing projects."
4. Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1662–1674. doi:10.1002/asi.20870
5. P. D. MAGNUS, On Trusting Wikipedia, Episteme 2009
   • Ocena wiarygodności źródeł: authority, plausible style, plausible content, calibration, sampling, s. 79)
6. Magnus, P.D. (August 2006) ’Epistemology and the Wikipedia.’ Presented at the North American Computing and Philosophy Conference in Troy, New York. http://hdl.handle.net/1951/42589
   • "I have argued that we should not assimilate Wikipedia to the kind encyclopedia. For one thing, we use it differently. Moreover, it frustrates the methods by which we judge the claims of traditional information sources like encyclopedias. This does not mean that Wikipedia is worthless or that we ought not use it at all. Yet it does mean that we should be wary of it and that we should try to develop methods which are suitable to it." (s. 7)
7. Lawrence M. Sanger (2009). The Fate of Expertise after Wikipedia. Episteme, 6, pp 52-73.
   • "But some Wikipedia articles suffer because so many aggressive people drive off people more knowledgeable than they are; so there is no reason to think that Wikipedia’s articles will continually improve."
   • "(WPT) The Wikipedia Potential Thesis. If Wikipedia fulfills its highest potential in terms of measurable quality, then experts will thereafter not need to be granted positions of special authority in order for humanity to have a resource that accurately tracks expert opinion."
   • "If I write something in my blog or in a wiki article, and you believe it, and no experts were consulted in the process, then operationally speaking, experts are no longer needed."
   • "Moreover, if, like Foucauldians, you believe that knowledge-claims function as assertions or endorsements of power, you might celebrate the fact that Wikipedia not only literally constructs knowledge but does so apparently without any specially privileged class of persons in power in the Wikipedia system."
   • "it is incorrect to suppose that Wikipedia is uniformly open and welcoming to all comers – that it really is the egalitarian paradise that simplistic portrayals suggest"
   • "anti-expert bias" (s. 63)
   • "Wikipedia’s articles in fields such as mathematics, engineering, computer science, and the hard sciences are rather better developed and of higher quality than its articles in the social sciences, humanities, and the arts – consistent with the finding of the aforementioned, flawed Nature report, which was limited to scientific topics. This, I think, is because the fields themselves are somewhat more amenable to straightforward negotiation, because expertise and sound methodology in these fields are easier for the average contributor to recognize and respect. In physics, for example, there is simply less to debate about than in, say, philosophy."
   • "There appears to be an assumption on the part of many Wikipedians, and even some researchers who ought to know to be at least skeptical, that while Wikipedia articles can decline in quality, they tend to improve over the long term. I believe that anecdotal evidence over the years, at least, has shown this to be incorrect, and I have spoken with a great many experts who appear to agree with me."
   • "The difficulty, as many disaffected Wikipedians have discovered, is that there are far too many articles persistently “managed” by aggressive individuals who will simply not let it improve in certain respects. In disputes, these persons tend to drive off more knowledgeable people, thereby keeping the quality of articles low."
   • "Wikipedia might be best described as having a rule of the most persistent – or, perhaps, a rule of those with nothing better to do. Since experts tend to be very busy professionals, they often cannot keep up their side of the edit war, and they lose by default."
   • "there is an entrenched group of Wikipedians who generally have Administrator authority in the project and who tend to work in very informal groups that back each other up. In short, the people who are tasked with enforcing what are supposed to be merely behavioral rules, not content rules, do frequently impose their will when it comes to content matters. This is a large part of the complaint I made earlier about “gaming the system.”"
   • "allegedly observed tendency of expert-crafted articles to deteriorate over time – to descend to the level of mediocrity with which the most persistent Wikipedians feel comfortable, as it were."
   • "punishments are ineffective against the most determined rulebreakers, and this is widely acknowledged to be one of the biggest management headaches for the project." (sockpuppets)
   • "Wikipedia is ruled by the most persistent, or those with the most time on their hands, not necessarily the most knowledgable"
   • "if its managers wanted Wikipedia to become a really authoritative source, they would need to embrace expertise and expert-friendly policies such as real names. Consequently, its reliability will probably never rise to the level of the Britannica, let alone the “99.8% accurate” level I was discussing earlier."