Comment The Wiki experiment (Score 1) 459
It seems to me that the most important measure of quality sould be overall factual accuracy (logical quality). I find it fascinating that the complaints about quality by Carr don't really make any serious claims against the site's factual accuracy. Formatting and contextual issues such as spelling are quality issues but not nearly as important to useability as logical quality.
I do use Wikipedia regularly but could care less if Wikis replace encyclopedias or not.
Does anyone know of a serious statistical survery of the factual accuracy of articles in Wikipedia?
What % of articles are "garbage", and what % are legitimate starting points of reference (what % have an acceptable logical quality)?
The articles "randomly" selected by Nicholas Carr are telling: how many people's primary use of Britannica consists of celebrity bios (e.g. Gates, Fonda)? His "dazzeling post" hints that he sees the "amateur" nature of the project as the real problem. Not suprising, since trust seems to correlate with social status in the minds of business-folk.
What makes traditional encyclopedias "Objective"? How is NPOV related to objectivity?
"small percentage of good entries" -- what % of the entries in Wikipedia are good?
I've yet to see any meaningful debate on the logical quality of the project. Somebody should compare topics side by side with Britannica and note the differences.
g
I do use Wikipedia regularly but could care less if Wikis replace encyclopedias or not.
Does anyone know of a serious statistical survery of the factual accuracy of articles in Wikipedia?
What % of articles are "garbage", and what % are legitimate starting points of reference (what % have an acceptable logical quality)?
The articles "randomly" selected by Nicholas Carr are telling: how many people's primary use of Britannica consists of celebrity bios (e.g. Gates, Fonda)? His "dazzeling post" hints that he sees the "amateur" nature of the project as the real problem. Not suprising, since trust seems to correlate with social status in the minds of business-folk.
What makes traditional encyclopedias "Objective"? How is NPOV related to objectivity?
"small percentage of good entries" -- what % of the entries in Wikipedia are good?
I've yet to see any meaningful debate on the logical quality of the project. Somebody should compare topics side by side with Britannica and note the differences.
g
