Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past
Authors: Roy Rosenzweig [edit item]
Citation: Journal of American History 93 (1): 117-146. 2006 June.
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
Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past is a publication by Roy Rosenzweig.


[edit] Abstract

The article presents information on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that contains articles about history. Wikipedia allows Internet users to freely read and use articles, thus, making it the most significant application of the principles of the free and open-source software movement to the world of cultural production. Astonishingly, Wikipedia has become widely read and cited, with more than a million people a day visiting the site. The article also offers information on other Web-based encyclopedias that were developed before Wikipedia.

[edit] Research questions

"To that end, this article seeks to answer some basic questions about history on Wikipedia. How did it develop? How does it work? How good is the historical writing? What are the potential implications for our practice as scholars, teachers, and purveyors of the past to the general public?"

Research details

Topics: Antecedents of quality, Comprehensiveness, Reliability, Research platform [edit item]
Domains: History [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Case study [edit item]
Data source: Websites, Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Subject [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Perhaps as a result, Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history In the 25 biographies I read closely, I found clear-cut factual errors in only 4. Most were small and inconsequential. Wikipedia, then, beats Encarta but not American National Bioff^aphy Online in coverage and roughly matches Encara in accuracy."

[edit] Comments

"Wikipedia is accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. histor; in 25 biographies only 4 clear-cut factual mostly small and inconsequential errors were found. Wikipedia, then, beats Encarta but not American National Biography Online in coverage and roughly matches Encara in accuracy."


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past"RDF feed
AbstractThe article presents information on WikipeThe article presents information on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that contains articles about history. Wikipedia allows Internet users to freely read and use articles, thus, making it the most significant application of the principles of the free and open-source software movement to the world of cultural production. Astonishingly, Wikipedia has become widely read and cited, with more than a million people a day visiting the site. The article also offers information on other Web-based encyclopedias that were developed before Wikipedia.dias that were developed before Wikipedia.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
CommentsWikipedia is accurate in reporting names, Wikipedia is accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. histor; in 25 biographies only 4 clear-cut factual mostly small and inconsequential errors were found. Wikipedia, then, beats Encarta but not American National Biography Online in coverage and roughly matches Encara in accuracy.ge and roughly matches Encara in accuracy.
ConclusionPerhaps as a result, Wikipedia is surprisiPerhaps as a result, Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and

events in U.S. history In the 25 biographies I read closely, I found clear-cut factual errors in only 4. Most were small and inconsequential. Wikipedia, then, beats Encarta but not American National Bioff^aphy Online in coverage and roughly matches Encara in accuracy.ge

and roughly matches Encara in accuracy.
Data sourceWebsites + and Wikipedia pages +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Can%2Bhistory%2Bbe%2Bopen%2Bsource%3F%2BWikipedia%2Band%2Bthe%2Bfuture%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bpast%22 +
Has authorRoy Rosenzweig +
Has domainHistory +
Has topicAntecedents of quality +, Comprehensiveness +, Reliability + and Research platform +
Issue1 +
MonthJune +
Pages117-146 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inJournal of American History +
Research designCase study +
Research questionsTo that end, this article seeks to answer To that end, this article seeks to answer some basic questions about history on Wikipedia.

How did it develop? How does it work? How good is the historical writing? What are the potential implications for our practice as scholars, teachers, and purveyors of the past to the general public?rveyors of the

past to the general public?
Revid10,690 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleCan history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past
Unit of analysisSubject +
Urlhttp://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/1/117.full +
Volume93 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageEnglish +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +
Year2006 +