| dbpprop:abstract
|
- The reliability of Wikipedia, compared to both other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is often assessed in several ways, including statistically, by comparative review, by analysis of the historical patterns, and by strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Wikipedia process. Because Wikipedia is open to collaborative editing and can be edited anonymously, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003 (not long after Wikipedia started in 2001, see History of Wikipedia) found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly--so quickly that most users will never see its effects"history flow: results IBM Collaborative User Experience Research Group, 2003 and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities. "Fernanda B. Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Kushal Dave: Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 575-582, Vienna 2004, ISBN 1-58113-702-8 Studies suggest that Wikipedia's reliability has improved in recent years, and it is increasingly used as a tertiary source. An investigation by Nature magazine in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors."
- A Confiabilidade da Wikipédia é um tema bastante controverso, uma vez que o sistema wiki adotado pela Wikipédia permite que informações sejam adicionadas e modificadas até mesmo por usuários anônimos, fato que poderia, a princípio, inviabilizar a confiabilidade das informações inseridas. Em 2009, de acordo com um artigo publicado pelo Irish Times, um estudante de sociologia da Universidade de Dublin, Shane Fitzgerald]], assim que soube da morte do compositor francês Maurice Jarre, criou um hoax com uma citação falsa atribuída ao compositor. Logo após sua falsa edição, importantes publicações da Inglaterra, EUA, Índia e Austrália teriam reproduzido a frase.
- Достоверность Википедии, по сравнению с другими энциклопедиями, а также более специализированными источниками, часто оценивается несколькими способами. По статистике они включают в себя сравнительный анализ и анализ исторических моделей, сильные и слабые стороны, свойственные Википедии. Так как Википедия является wiki, и открыта для совместного редактирования, оценка достоверности требует также рассмотрения ее способности находить и быстро устранять ложную и недостоверную информацию. Согласно исследованию, проведенному в 2005 году, Википедия приблизилась по достоверности и по проценту «серьезных ошибок» к Encyclopædia Britannica.
|
| rdfs:comment
|
- The reliability of Wikipedia, compared to both other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is often assessed in several ways, including statistically, by comparative review, by analysis of the historical patterns, and by strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Wikipedia process. Because Wikipedia is open to collaborative editing and can be edited anonymously, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed.
- A Confiabilidade da Wikipédia é um tema bastante controverso, uma vez que o sistema wiki adotado pela Wikipédia permite que informações sejam adicionadas e modificadas até mesmo por usuários anônimos, fato que poderia, a princípio, inviabilizar a confiabilidade das informações inseridas.
- Достоверность Википедии, по сравнению с другими энциклопедиями, а также более специализированными источниками, часто оценивается несколькими способами.
|
![[RDF Data]](/statics/sw-cube.png)
