Experts Rate Wikipedia Higher Than Non-Experts 204
Grooves writes "A new Wikipedia study suggests that when experts and non-experts look to assess Wikipedia for accuracy, the non-experts are harder on the free encyclopedia than the experts. The researcher had 55 graduate students and research assistants examine one Wikipedia article apiece for accuracy, some in fields they were familiar with and some not. Those in the expert group ranked their articles as generally credible, higher than those evaluated by the non-experts. One researcher said 'It may be the case that non-experts are more cynical about information outside of their field and the difference comes from a natural reaction to rate unfamiliar articles as being less credible.'" That's the problem people face when 'everyone who disagrees with you is a moron'.
Why I Doubt (Score:3, Informative)
Read more carefully... (Score:3, Informative)
They're not saying that, and that's not the "stunt" they "[tried] to pull". They're saying that the biology Ph.D candidate is an expert in biology, and he, as an expert in biology, rated biology articles rather high as far as accuracy goes. He then rated astronomy articles (a field in which he isn't an expert) lower. Now, move on to the guy who is a Ph.D candidate in astronomy, and you end up with opposite results (biology articles rated lower than astronomy articles). They weren't testing grad students against non-grad students, they were testing grad-students of different disciplines against each other.
Re:it's a question of open-mindness (Score:3, Informative)
And I believe someone should RTFA before weighing in on it. It wasn't divided into "people who are grad students" and "people who aren't grad students," it was divided into "people who are grad students or researchers in a certain field and are given an article from Wikipedia about that field" and "people who are grad students or researchers in a certain field and are given a random article from Wikipedia's 'Random Article' link in the Navigation Menu on the front page." Or maybe we shall let the study itself explain:
It's very short, so it's not too big of an inconvenience to actually read it.
Re:The problem with this is... (Score:3, Informative)
I think there is more to the results of this study, though. It raises good point about the nature of Wikipedia, IMHO. If I see an article in my own area of expertise, I can personally verify its correctness and accuracy. That's why I am perfectly willing to quote such articles, refer to them in discussions, and point people to them if they want to learn something about the topic.
If I, OTOH, see an article say on organic chemistry, I have no way to judge how good it is. It may very well be an excellent, completely accurate, article, however, I will never know, without actually asking an expert. All I know is that this is an article on Wikipedia, and may have been written as a prank by a high school student who has no clue about organic chemistry whatsoever. Therefore I will be very hesitant to refer to such article, and I will be very hesitant to give it high rating on correctness and accuracy.
Re:A Possible Reason (Score:3, Informative)
Hitler is by far not the only source of Nazi ideology. Other main contributors were Alfred Rosenberg, Gottfried Feder, Carl Schmitt, Karl Haushofer, Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, and many others. In general, "National Socialism" was far more complicated and ingrained into (not only) German thinking of the times than seems to be taught in US schools today (which does not make the ideology and its deeds less horrific of course.)
Re:Peer reviewed (Score:4, Informative)