(Alternative names for this keyword)
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of keywords|
verifiability is included as keyword or extra keyword in 0 datasets, 0 tools and 5 publications.
There is no datasets for this keyword.
There is no tools for this keyword.
|Title||Author(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|The convergence of notability and verifiability on Wikipedia||Mark J. Nelson||English||15 February 2011||0||0|
|A comparative assessment of answer quality on four question answering sites||Fichman P.||Journal of Information Science||English||2011||Question answering (Q&A) sites, where communities of volunteers answer questions, may provide faster, cheaper, and better services than traditional institutions. However, like other Web 2.0 platforms, user-created content raises concerns about information quality. At the same time, Q&A sites may provide answers of different quality because they have differen communities and technological platforms. This paper compares answer quality on four Q&A sites: Askville, WikiAnswers, Wikipedia Reference Desk, and Yahoo! Answers. Findings indicate that: (1) similar collaborative processes on these sites result in a wide range of outcomes, and significant differences in answer accuracy, completeness, and verifiability were evident; (2) answer multiplication does not always result in better information; it yields more complete and verifiable answers but does not result in higher accuracy levels; and (3) a Q&A site's popularity does not correlate with its answer quality, on all three measures.||0||0|
|How smart is a smart card?||Naone E.||Technology Review||English||2008||Simson L. Garfinkel explores Wikipedia's epistemology and discovers that, far from being the free-for-all, the world's most popular reference is decidedly rigid. In its effort to ensure accuracy, Wikipedia relies entirely on verifiability, requiring that all factual claims include a citation to another published source. There are, of course, times when the consensus view and the truth align perfectly. The problem is how to determine when this is the case. This diversity of thought and action is what Wikipedia has tried to establish in building its vast and ever-expanding knowledge base. By letting anyone contribute, regardless of his or her credentials, it runs the risk that absurdities, inconsistencies, and misinformation will flourish. H. B. Phillips, the former head of MIT mathematics department, reveals that when there is considerable difference of opinion, there is no evidence that the intellectuals supply any better answers than ordinary people.||0||0|
|Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia||Don Fallis||Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, , No. 10,||2008||Wikipedia (the "free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit") is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether or not people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this paper argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., websites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This paper suggests that, in order to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and we need a better understanding of why Wikipedia works as well as it does.||0||4|
|Wagging Wikipedia's long tail||Shane Greenstein||IEEE Micro||English||2007||In 2005, Wikipedia surpassed Encarta as the Internet's most popular reference site. Wikipedia calls itself the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and it has grown rapidly since its founding in 2001. As an educator and parent, Greenstein finds himself struggling to come to terms with the economics of Wikipedia, which have shaped a resource that is at times very good, but occasionally poor. The inconsistency is a result of Wikipedia's long tail, a characteristic that requires some explanation. And thereby hangs a tale.||0||0|