Credibility of wikipedia

Why wikipedia should be a valid source

Denning, P. Incentives to contribute in online collaboration: Wikipedia as collective action. What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in regards to the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. Sanger states, "To the extent that the project is not reaching, and being supported by, these people, it is not succeeding as well as it might. Forte and Bruckman compared the incentives of wikipedians to those of scientists and found that ' The notion of credit exists in Wikipedia both as reward and as credibility that empowers individuals in the community' [3] , but that accruing credit was not a matter only of meritocracy based on contributing to articles, but also of becoming a well-known figure in the Wikipedia community through other means. Communications of the ACM, 42 5 , Previous studies have investigated the perspectives of various user groups and so-called experts when it comes to perceptions of Wikipedia's credibility. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light", [80] and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. It concludes that, depending upon the need, one should think critically and assess the appropriateness of one's sources, "whether you are looking for fact or opinion, how in-depth you want to be as you explore a topic, the importance of reliability and accuracy, and the importance of timely or recent information", and adds that Wikipedia can be used in any event as a "starting point". One of the areas of this law protects users and internet companies from being responsible for content posted to sites such as Wikipedia. Hoiberg focused on a need for expertise and control in an encyclopedia and cited Lewis Mumford that overwhelming information could "bring about a state of intellectual enervation and depletion hardly to be distinguished from massive ignorance".

How do their practices compare with findings from previous research about credibility assessments on Wikipedia made by other user groups?

The non-peer-reviewed study was based on Nature's selection of 42 articles on scientific topics, including biographies of well-known scientists.

The employees view of the organization completely intervenes the positive relationship between the CEO credibility and the employee's involvement of engagement.

is wikipedia reliable 2017

By using a system of votes, users choose whether questionable or offensive content should stay or not. The students were generally aware that Wikipedia could be edited 'by anyone', and so took that into account when they consulted it Sundin and Francke ; Rieh andHilligoss ; Head and Eisenberg ; Lim A piece of misinformation originally taken from a Wikipedia article will live on in perhaps dozens of other websites, even if Wikipedia itself has deleted the unreliable material.

Still, because anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, they "can easily be undermined through malice or ignorance," noted BBC technology commentator Bill Thompson.

is wikipedia reliable 2018

Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor, indeed trivial, factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels.

Gaming against the greater good. If called upon, they can properly say it was a minor reference, based on the best available information at the time, and said without malice.

Is wikipedia reliable 2019

Metzger and Flanagin 12 note that what they term emergent credibility has been described with a ore or less similar intent by Lankes as part of what he terms the ' reliability approach'. When this occurs, he tries to determine which is the more authoritative source, both in terms of author and of publication history. Schneider finds it inherently untrustworthy, and questions the scope and balance of its articles. Trust in a doctor's credibility is essential to a patient's health: depending on the patient's trust in the doctor they will be more or less willing to seek help, reveal sensitive information, submit to treatment, and follow the doctor's recommendations. One participant discusses this in relation to two Swedish encyclopedias: On Wikpedia, you often have a look at Nationalencyklopedin [the latest comprehensive commercial Swedish encyclopedia] Fogg, B. Of course, if you find yourself on this page, you might worry that the list itself may not be trustworthy. No errors were found, though there were significant omissions. Rieh, S. In this context, even encyclopedias that are to some degree out-of-date are sometimes considered useful, particularly since they are no longer covered by copyright. The popularity of Wikipedia, as well as of similar applications, has consequences for people's information practices. Learning as the use of tools: a sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. By using a system of votes, users choose whether questionable or offensive content should stay or not. If the CEO is seen as someone to whom the senior employees can go to for knowledge and help, this goes to show they have confidence that the CEO holds the skills necessary to help, and is thus valued in their position as such. Tseng, S.

Only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in Britannica. There are many attempts to define credibility, although none have reached general acceptance.

A great many legitimate writers refer to things as they see or believe them to be.

is wikipedia reliable quora

His research interests concern information literacy, the credibility and authority of sources and information practices.

Rated 9/10 based on 30 review
How Accurate Is Wikipedia?