Wikipedia/Bibliography: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John R. Brews (→Papers: not needed) |
imported>John R. Brews m (→Papers: font) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*A widely cited and debated study which compared the accuracy of 42 entries each in the English Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, concluding that both had similar numbers of factual errors. | *A widely cited and debated study which compared the accuracy of 42 entries each in the English Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, concluding that both had similar numbers of factual errors. | ||
:::{{cite journal |title=Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head |author=Jim Giles |url=http://www.jimgiles.net/pdfs/InternetEncyclopaedias.pdf |journal=Nature |volume=438 |pages=pp. 900-901 |date=15 December 2005}} | :::{{cite journal |title=Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head |author=Jim Giles |url=http://www.jimgiles.net/pdfs/InternetEncyclopaedias.pdf |journal=Nature |volume=438 |pages=pp. 900-901 |date=15 December 2005}} | ||
::Response by Encyclopedia Brittanica | ::Response by ''Encyclopedia Brittanica'' | ||
:::{{cite web |title=Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal ''Nature'' |url =http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf |publisher= Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc. |date=March 2006 |accessdate=2011-10-28}}. | :::{{cite web |title=Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal ''Nature'' |url =http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf |publisher= Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc. |date=March 2006 |accessdate=2011-10-28}}. | ||
::''Nature'''s return salvo: | ::''Nature'''s return salvo: | ||
Revision as of 11:46, 28 October 2011
- Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner. For formatting, consider using automated reference wikification.
Papers
- Priedhorsky, R., J. Chen, S.K. Lam, K. Panciera, L. Terveen and J. Riedl (2007) 'Creating, destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia'. Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work.
- A widely cited and debated study which compared the accuracy of 42 entries each in the English Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, concluding that both had similar numbers of factual errors.
- Jim Giles (15 December 2005). "Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head". Nature 438: pp. 900-901.
- Response by Encyclopedia Brittanica
- Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc. (March 2006). Retrieved on 2011-10-28..
- Nature's return salvo:
- Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica (March 30, 2006). Retrieved on 2011-10-28.
- Response by Encyclopedia Brittanica
Books
- Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, Ben Yates (2008). How Wikipedia works: and how you can be a part of it. No Starch Press. ISBN 159327176X. A detailed discussion of how WP works, including the arbitration processes. Some subsidiary web links are found here.
- John Broughton (2008). Wikipedia: the missing manual. O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN 0596515162. A "how-to" manual that besides mechanics of use, includes sections on dispute resolution over both content (Chapter 10: Resolving content disputes) and personal attacks (Chapter 11: Handling incivility and personal attacks).
- Andrew Lih (2009). The Wikipedia revolution: How a bunch of nobodies created the world's greatest encyclopedia. London: Aurum. ISBN 9781845134730. Forward by Jimmy Wales. An enthusiast's attempt at a history of Wikipedia, faulted for some gaffes by reviewers on Amazon.
- Dan Woods, Peter Thoeny (2007). “Chapter 4: Using and improving the 800-pound gorilla of wikis, Wikipedia”, Wikis for dummies. Wiley, pp. 81 ff. ISBN 0470043997. A basic "how-to" manual for readers and first-time contributors.
Statistics and trends
- Benjamin Mako Hill (February 6, 2011). Editor-to-Reader Ratios on Wikipedia. Copyrighteous. Retrieved on 2011-10-27. This article states that since 2008 the number of active editors has decreased 12%, while the proportion of readers that edit at least five times a month has dropped 42%.
- Community health. Interviews/Summary of interviews. Wikimedia: Strategic planning (2009). Retrieved on 2011-10-27. A summary of opinion that the WP community is becoming more isolated and hostile to newcomers with time, and creating its own language, creating a "tiny priesthood that can edit".