Life | The Universe | Everything | Advanced Search

	New visitors:  Returning members:

This is the Conversation Forum for Wikipedia Wickerpedia. >> Subject: How to measure Wikipedia's success. Posted Feb 24, 2007 by Lucinda (et al) - Dun Researchin' This is a reply to this Posting   Posting 21 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. Read the First Reply to this Posting Subject: How to measure Wikipedia's success. Posted Feb 24, 2007 by   Traveller in Times >42 )^( _ This is a reply to this Posting   Posting 22 Traveller in Time reading "We must be perfect, they used <42> entries to measure the accuracy " Read the First Reply to this Posting Subject: How to measure Wikipedia's success. Posted Feb 24, 2007 by Lucinda (et al) - Dun Researchin' This is a reply to this Posting   Posting 23 You'll have to explain that comment for me. Subject: How to measure Wikipedia's success. Posted Mar 3, 2007 by vaguedisclaimer This is a reply to this Posting   Posting 24 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. Read the First Reply to this Posting Subject: How to measure Wikipedia's success. Posted Mar 11, 2007 by Lucinda (et al) - Dun Researchin' This is a reply to this Posting   Posting 25 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 Read the First Reply to this Posting Subject: How to measure Wikipedia's success. Posted May 5, 2007 by vaguedisclaimer This is a reply to this Posting   Posting 26 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. Read the First Reply to this Posting Subject: How to measure Wikipedia's success. Posted May 5, 2007 by vaguedisclaimer This is a reply to this Posting   Posting 27 Memo to self: check when you have already posted a link. Subject: How to measure Wikipedia's success. Posted May 28, 2007 by lisette_in This is a reply to this Posting   Posting 28 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 Conversation list Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click on the relevant button to alert our Moderation Team. Conversation list

Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click here. For any other comments, please click on the Feedback button above.

About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy