An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility
Authors: Thomas Chesney [edit item]
Citation: First Monday 11 (11): . 2006.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: Define doi.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility is a publication by Thomas Chesney.


[edit] Abstract

Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopaedia; anyone can add content or edit existing content. The idea behind Wikipedia is that members of the public can add their own personal knowledge, anonymously if they wish. Wikipedia then evolves over time into a comprehensive knowledge base on all things. Its popularity has never been questioned, although some have speculated about its authority. By its own admission, Wikipedia contains errors. A number of people have tested Wikipedia's accuracy using destructive methods, that is, deliberately inserting errors. This has been criticized by Wikipedia. This short study examined Wikipedia's credibility by asking 258 research staff, with a response rate of 21%, to read an article and assess its credibility, the credibility of its author, and the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Staff were either given an article in their own expert domain or a random article. No difference was found between the two groups in terms of their perceived credibility of Wikipedia or of the articles' authors, but a difference was found in the credibility of the articles — the experts found Wikipedia's articles to be more credible than the nonexperts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13% of the articles contain mistakes.

[edit] Research questions

"This short study examines Wikipedia’s credibility by asking 258 research staff with a response rate of 21 percent, to read an article and assess its credibility, the credibility of its author and the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole."

Research details

Topics: Reliability [edit item]
Domains: Information systems [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis, Explanation [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Experiment, Statistical analysis [edit item]
Data source: Experiment responses, Survey responses [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: Not specified [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"No difference was found between the two group in terms of their perceived credibility of Wikipedia or of the articles’ authors, but a difference was found in the credibility of the articles — the experts found Wikipedia’s articles to be more credible than the non–experts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes."

[edit] Comments

"Both experts and non-experts agreed on the credibility of Wikipedia and of the articles’ authors, but the experts found Wikipedia’s articles to be more credible than the non–experts; This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high but it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is totally reliable."


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility"RDF feed
AbstractWikipedia is a free, online encyclopaedia;Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopaedia; anyone can add content or edit existing content. The idea behind Wikipedia is that members of the public can add their own personal knowledge, anonymously if they wish. Wikipedia then evolves over time into a comprehensive knowledge base on all things. Its popularity has never been questioned, although some have speculated about its authority. By its own admission, Wikipedia contains errors. A number of people have tested Wikipedia's accuracy using destructive methods, that is, deliberately inserting errors. This has been criticized by Wikipedia. This short study examined Wikipedia's credibility by asking 258 research staff, with a response rate of 21%, to read an article and assess its credibility, the credibility of its author, and the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Staff were either given an article in their own expert domain or a random article. No difference was found between the two groups in terms of their perceived credibility of Wikipedia or of the articles' authors, but a difference was found in the credibility of the articles — the experts found Wikipedia's articles to be more credible than the nonexperts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13% of the articles contain mistakes.rts, 13% of the articles contain mistakes.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
CommentsBoth experts and non-experts agreed on theBoth experts and non-experts agreed on the credibility of Wikipedia and of the articles’ authors, but the experts found Wikipedia’s articles to be more credible than the non–experts; This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high but it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is totally reliable.t mean that Wikipedia is totally reliable.
ConclusionNo difference was found between the two grNo difference was found between the two group in terms of their perceived credibility of Wikipedia or of the articles’ authors, but a difference was found in the credibility of the articles — the experts found Wikipedia’s articles to be more credible than the non–experts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes. percent of the articles contain mistakes.
Data sourceExperiment responses + and Survey responses +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22An%2Bempirical%2Bexamination%2Bof%2BWikipedia%27s%2Bcredibility%22 +
Has authorThomas Chesney +
Has domainInformation systems +
Has topicReliability +
Issue11 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inFirst Monday +
Research designExperiment + and Statistical analysis +
Research questionsThis short study examines Wikipedia’s credibility by asking 258 research staff with a response rate of 21 percent, to read an article and assess its credibility, the credibility of its author and the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.
Revid10,657 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis + and Explanation +
TitleAn empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility
Unit of analysisArticle +
Urlhttp://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1413 +
Volume11 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageNot specified +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +
Year2006 +