On 18 April 2012 12:48, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce > trust in Wikipedia. > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm > Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
On the CREWE Facebook page, Andrew Lih from WIkipedia has asked Dr diStaso to correct her claims. His request: ‘Thanks, but doesn’t that mean the correct conclusion should be: “60% of respondents who identified an article about their client found at least one error”? That’s very different than: “60% of Wikipedia articles about PR clients had factual errors” even more different than: “60% of Wikipedia articles had factual errors” Doesn’t this warrant a significant correction?’ Dr diStaso has, instead, reinforced the wrong impression in quotes given to ABC News today: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/04/wikipedia-survey-shows-60-percent-of-entries-have-errors-and-public-relations-people-cant-correct-them/ I've asked her as well to please take the opportunity to urgently correct the impression her work is giving. I'm sure there will be no problem with this. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
