Browse wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Early response to false claims in Wikipedia
Abstract A number of studies have assessed the reliA number of studies have assessed the reliability of entries in Wikipedia at specific times. One important difference between Wikipedia and traditional media, however, is the dynamic nature of its entries. An entry assessed today might be substantially extended or reworked tomorrow. This study paper assesses the frequency with which small, inaccurate changes are quickly corrected. inaccurate changes are quickly corrected.
Added by wikilit team Yes  +
Collected data time dimension Longitudinal  +
Conclusion In short: About one third to one half of tIn short: About one third to one half of the fibs were corrected within 48 hours. One fifth to one quarter of the fib groups experienced association effects [3]. There would be little point in trying to refine these results with a larger sample. If the effort became large enough to draw attention from Wikipedia users, then the sample as a whole might suffer from association effects. Moreover, different topics and areas of Wikipedia are maintained by different portions of the user community. And the very same entries will be maintained by different partially overlapping communities over time. An effort expanded to many more entries would inevitably test the diligence of different subcommunities who would not form a homogenous reference class. Nevertheless, these results provide something more than anecdotes and can serve as a compliment to assessments of Wikipedia entries at–a–time (such as Giles, 2005 and Chesney, 2006) and indirect measures of reliability (such as Nielson, 2007).es of reliability (such as Nielson, 2007).
Data source Experiment responses  + , Wikipedia pages  +
Google scholar url http://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Early%2Bresponse%2Bto%2Bfalse%2Bclaims%2Bin%2BWikipedia%22  +
Has author P.D. Magnus +
Has domain Information systems +
Has topic Reliability + , Vandalism +
Issue 9  +
Month September  +
Pages 4  +
Peer reviewed Yes  +
Publication type Journal article  +
Published in First Monday +
Research design Experiment  +
Research questions Note that the study is not an aimed to shoNote that the study is not an aimed to show that Wikipedia is vulnerable to malicious tampering. Deliberate tampering could easily have employed more effective methods: usernames, fabricated citations, and others best left to the reader’s imagination. The aim, rather, is to see how effective Wikipedia users are at responding quickly to false claims added to otherwise adequate entries. The insertion of false claims is inevitable even without vandalism, because some Wikipedia users have false beliefs. They will, in good faith, transcribe these falisities into Wikipedia. This study gets at response to such falsities by Wikipedia users.onse to such falsities by Wikipedia users.
Revid 10,743  +
Theories Undetermined
Theory type Analysis  +
Title Early response to false claims in Wikipedia
Unit of analysis Article  +
Url http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2115  +
Volume 13  +
Wikipedia coverage Main topic  +
Wikipedia data extraction Live Wikipedia  +
Wikipedia language English  +
Wikipedia page type Article  +
Year 2008  +
Creation dateThis property is a special property in this wiki. 15 March 2012 20:26:13  +
Categories Reliability  + , Vandalism  + , Information systems  + , Publications with missing comments  + , Publications  +
Modification dateThis property is a special property in this wiki. 30 January 2014 20:25:55  +
hide properties that link here 
  No properties link to this page.
 

 

Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.