Posted Feb 24, 2007 by Lucinda (et al) - Dun Researchin'
Nature has now done the kind of survey we discuss:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
It was comparing Wikipedia and Brittanica for accuracy. I don't know of any surveys on the accuracy of h2g2.
|
 
|  | |
|
|
Posted Feb 24, 2007 by Traveller in Times >42 )^( _
Traveller in Time  reading
"We must be perfect, they used <42> entries to measure the accuracy  "
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Feb 24, 2007 by Lucinda (et al) - Dun Researchin'
You'll have to explain that comment for me.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Mar 3, 2007 by vaguedisclaimer
That Nature article (carried out last year) has been comprehensively debunked, along with much of Nature's credibility:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/25/britannica_wikipedia_nature/
Choice quote: "We asked for the data so that anyone could replicate the results,"Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas said."At first Nature said they couldn't release the data because they had promised their referees anonymity. We said that's fine. Then they said it's too much trouble."
It methodology was - to put it mildly - deeply flawed.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Mar 11, 2007 by Lucinda (et al) - Dun Researchin'
The Nature article I linked contains a response to the objections you mention. Here it is for easy reference:
http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html
|
| | |
|
|
Posted May 5, 2007 by vaguedisclaimer
They did indeed. And it was every bit as risible as the original article. The Register outlines why: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/25/britannica_wikipedia_nature/>.
In the end Nature's method was either sound or not sound. It wasn't, on any credible measure.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted May 5, 2007 by vaguedisclaimer
Memo to self: check when you have already posted a link.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted May 28, 2007 by lisette_in
hello everyone,
i joined this discussion because i am writing a dissertation on ICT and reputational risk. i am generally focussing on wikipedia and how it can be used by users to write incorrect(at times intentionally) entry which can negetatively effect a company's reputation. like the case of the lawyers of a company who wrote some nasty things about their riva company. of course, their IP address was traced back and they were arrested. if any of you have more details on this case or some other similar cases related to wikipedia or other similar services could you please help me out. of course i'll be adding to the discussion here should i find anythg interesting.
cheers 
lisa
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
Home
Reply
