Well personal bias is always potentially a problem. The Oxford study
tried to avoid this by 'blind' review. They changed the format of the
Britannica and the Wikipedia articles so it was not obvious which was
which. The problem with the study, however, was that they did not
realise one of the articles they had selected was Britannica 1911 clone,
so they were comparing a 100 year version of Britannica with a modern
Britannica. On a separate note, the fact they found them comparable was
worrying (scholarship on the Middle Ages has been completely transformed
over the last century, no one from Oxford spotted that?). And there were
a separate bunch of errors that they missed entirely. Were the errors
I spotted simply my 'bias' (I am not a fan of Wikipedia, true)? I don't
think so: I was aiming to pick up simple referencing and factual errors
only, nothing fancy.
Ed
On 08/05/2014 10:14, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM, edward <[email protected]> wrote:
"While academic attitudes to Wikipedia may be of some interest they are
not a proxy for quality."
I don't understand this. I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't
understand. How would an attitude be a 'proxy' for quality?
I think what Geni was expressing there was a fear that experts might rate
an article badly because they do not like Wikipedia, i.e. that their
ratings might reflect prejudice rather than an honest scholarly assessment
of the article content.
I guess that's a form of AGF.
_______________________________________________
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>
