Wikipedia Confidence

The credibility of a Wikipedia article can be analyzed by several criteria:

• The accuracy of the information given in the article;
• Correspondence of illustrations to its theme and observance of property rights to images;
• Compliance with the style and theme of the article ^[7] ;
• Clarity, review and coverage of the topic in an article or in a group of articles;
• Separation of information from serious third-party sources as quotes;
• Stability of articles;
• The ability to delete or exclude incorrect information (a specific criterion due to the special process of writing articles on Wikipedia);
• Vulnerability to scientific or systemic bias;
• Is the information provided consistent with the standard?

The first three criteria are the subject of numerous studies of the project, while there is still a discussion about prejudice and bias, and you can see the quality and prevalence of quotes in Wikipedia itself.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. The bulk of all editors are civilized people. They not only add new material, but also correct the consequences of incorrect editing by beginners, laypeople, or malicious editors. Although the Wikipedia editing model allows you to add both low-quality (for example, minimal article preparation, template ) and inaccurate information, however, this is corrected over time and the quality improves due to group editing of the article and bringing its quality to the desired level. Obviously substandard articles are quickly deleted.

This assumption is still being tested, and its limitations and reliability have not yet been determined: Wikipedia is a pioneer of this kind of collective accumulation of knowledge. It contrasts with many more traditional knowledge base models and publications that attempt to limit content creation to a relatively small group of tried and tested editors in order to exercise strict hierarchical control. Theories of critical pedagogy argue about whether consensus itself can maintain the status quo . New knowledge arises only as a result of a dialectical influence on the top of the hierarchical ladder. ^[eight]

In order to improve reliability, some editors call for “stable versions” of articles ^[9] (the mode when the reader is shown not the latest version but the most recently verified by an experienced editor) or articles that are reviewed by the community and closed for further editing. ^[ten]

The Wikipedia knowledge creation model is relatively new, as large-scale collective projects of this kind were rare before the advent of the Internet and are still rare on a similar scale. Over time, Wikipedia has developed many useful editing tools based on trial and error .

While Wikipedia, with its potential for extremely rapid development, uses the whole community - much like other collective open source projects, such as GNU / Linux - it goes further in its trust in this community in its self-regulation and improved quality control. Wikipedia uses the work of millions of people to create and maintain the world's largest site of organized knowledge, as well as software for its work, resulting in the appearance of more than 51,047,200 articles (written over 10 years), including 1,567,769 in Russian language. Therefore, the project is quite interesting both academically and from the point of view of various fields, such as information technology, business , project management , knowledge, programming , training , creating a scientific model of the world and other collective projects. They are all interested in seeing the Wikipedia model give good results, that such cooperation can tell about people, whether the scale of participation can overcome individual limitations and poor editing, which would otherwise occur.

Another reason for the study is the widespread and growing trust in Wikipedia from websites and individuals who use it as a source of information, and the fear that such a significant source is subject to rapid changes - including the introduction of misinformation on someone’s whim. Proponents of such fears seek to confirm the quality and reliability of articles and the levels of usefulness, misinformation or vandalism that can be expected to determine how much Wikipedia can be trusted.

Anonymous Edits

Wikipedia is different in that it allows for completely anonymous editing by people who have not provided any identification or email. In 2007, a corresponding study at Dartmouth College showed that against ordinary social expectations, anonymous editors were among the most productive Wikipedia participants who add reliable information, the researchers also considered social reasons ^[4] :

Correctness of Articles

One way to evaluate the reliability of information is to compare Wikipedia articles with similar articles in reputable sources .

A popular source of criticism of reliability is the free process used, which means that any article can be changed for better or for worse at any time, and the fact that there are currently no privileged versions in the main encyclopedia. This variability is estimated by experts both positively and negatively, as well as the Wikipedia model, which prefers the initial accuracy to a quick fix.

Comparative Studies

On October 24, 2005, The Guardian published an article entitled “Can I trust Wikipedia?” In which a team of experts was asked to critically review seven articles from their area. ^[11] One article was deemed to do “each value judgment ... wrong”, the rest received ratings of 5 to 8 out of ten. Regarding the remaining six reviewed and evaluated articles, the objects of criticism most often were:

1. Bad language, or hard to read (3 references);
2. Omissions or inaccuracies, often minor, but serious in some articles;
3. Poor balance, less important parts paid more attention, and vice versa (1 mention).

Among the positive aspects of Wikipedia articles, experts most often identified the following:

1. The articles were qualitative and correct in terms of the actual content and did not have obvious inaccuracies (4 references);
2. You can find very useful information in them, including well-chosen links that allow you to get “quick access to a significant amount of information” (3 references).