Junk science? I suppose the Article Feedback Tool was more scientific, then, because that's the best the Foundation has come up with so far.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 May 2014 18:14, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review. > > There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as > > infoboxes and other bells and whistles. > > > > I find it extraordinary that, after 13 years, a project designed to make > > the sum of human knowledge available to humanity, with an annual budget > of > > $50 million, has no clue how to measure the quality of the content it is > > providing, no apparent interest in doing so, and no apparent will to > spend > > money on it. > > > > For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's > > medical content that came to unflattering results: > > > > http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full > > > > ---o0o--- > > > > Most Wikipedia articles for the 10 costliest conditions in the United > > States contain errors compared with standard peer-reviewed sources. > Health > > care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using > > Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care. > > > > Our findings reinforce the idea that physicians and medical students who > > currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from > > doing so because of the potential for errors. > > > > > > > Doesn't help very much in assessing the quality of the article on > > [[Liancourt Rocks]] - when depending on where in the world one is, the > > article can be reasonably accurate or completely inaccurate. This is one > > of the geographic issues of which I speak. > > > There are also issues with the study you reference - it's quite biased > toward American information and the articles only have two reviewers. It > perhaps points out how easy it is to get junk science published in > peer-reviewed journals if the topic is "sexy" enough - their own > study wouldn't meet our standards for inclusion. > > Risker/Anne > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
