Hi Chris,
Thank you for your reply:
>> This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential
>> than a large proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
>>
>> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
>
> I am not sure that is the correct conclusion from the paper you me
Hi James,
This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a large
> proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
>
> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
I am not sure that is the correct conclusion from the paper you mention.
To quote the conclusion:
"W
Gerard,
Are there any other areas where systemic bias on the wikipedias might
reasonably expected to cause serious damage to society? If we are
missing articles on notable women, or rural landmarks, or we have
Japanese islands with Korean names or vice-versa, that is bad, but is
it likely to cause
Hoi,
There are many area's where Wikipedia is biased. Obviously we take the
gender gap seriously but there is also a bias towards the Western world. It
is very much in the very basics of our community. Why should we study the
bias in a field like economics? When we were to study it what kind of
imp
Another fact to consider is that both doctors and patients have been
obtaining most of their medical information from Wikipedia for years:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/
Christophe, does the Board agree that the Fou
Chris,
This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a large
proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official who
recently claimed that my assertion
