Wikipedia as a Data Source for Political Scientists: Accuracy and Completeness of Coverage
|Wikipedia as a Data Source for Political Scientists: Accuracy and Completeness of Coverage|
|Author(s)||Adam R. Brown|
|Published in||PS: Political Science & Politics|
|Keyword(s)||Unknown (Extra: Accuracy, Completeness, Coverage, political science, Wikipedia, Topic coverage)|
|Article||BASE, CiteSeerX, Google Scholar|
|Web||Ask, Bing, Google (PDF), Yahoo!|
|Download and mirrors|
|Local copy||Not available|
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of publications|
In only 10 years, Wikipedia has risen from obscurity to become the dominant information source for an entire generation. However, any visitor can edit any page on Wikipedia, which hardly fosters confidence in its accuracy. In this article, I review thousands of Wikipedia articles about candidates, elections, and officeholders to assess both the accuracy and the thoroughness of Wikipedia's coverage. I find that Wikipedia is almost always accurate when a relevant article exists, but errors of omission are extremely frequent. These errors of omission follow a predictable pattern. Wikipedia's political coverage is often very good for recent or prominent topics but is lacking on older or more obscure topics.
This publication has 10 references. Only those references related to wikis are included here:
- "Wiki-Philosophizing in a Marketplace of Ideas: Evaluating Wikipedia’s Entries on Seven Great Minds"
- "An Evaluation of the Quality of Consumer Health Information on Wikipedia" (create it!)
- "Comparison of Wikipedia and Other Encyclopedias for Accuracy, Breadth, and Depth in Historical Articles"
Cited byThis publication has 2 citations. Only those publications available in WikiPapers are shown here:
- Assessing the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia entries compared to popular online encyclopaedias
- What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)