Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past
| 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 |
Contents
[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]
| Abstract | The article presents information on Wikipe … 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.dias that were developed before Wikipedia. |
| Added by wikilit team | Added on initial load + |
| Collected data time dimension | Cross-sectional + |
| Comments | Wikipedia 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. |
| Conclusion | Perhaps as a result, Wikipedia is surprisi … 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. ge and roughly matches Encara in accuracy. |
| Data source | Websites + and Wikipedia pages + |
| Google scholar url | http://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Can%2Bhistory%2Bbe%2Bopen%2Bsource%3F%2BWikipedia%2Band%2Bthe%2Bfuture%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bpast%22 + |
| Has author | Roy Rosenzweig + |
| Has domain | History + |
| Has topic | Antecedents of quality +, Comprehensiveness +, Reliability + and Research platform + |
| Issue | 1 + |
| Month | June + |
| Pages | 117-146 + |
| Peer reviewed | Yes + |
| Publication type | Journal article + |
| Published in | Journal of American History + |
| Research design | Case study + |
| Research questions | To 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? |
| Revid | 10,690 + |
| Theories | Undetermined |
| Theory type | Analysis + |
| Title | Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past |
| Unit of analysis | Subject + |
| Url | http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/1/117.full + |
| Volume | 93 + |
| Wikipedia coverage | Main topic + |
| Wikipedia data extraction | Live Wikipedia + |
| Wikipedia language | English + |
| Wikipedia page type | Article + |
| Year | 2006 + |
