1. Reliability of Wikipedia
Erin Dul
ALES 204
21 March 2012

2. Wikipedia Assignment - FAQs
• How do I choose a stub?
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stub_lists
– Try to choose one that you have good references for!
• My stub already has some information written?
– 300-600 words must be your own
– Make sure that the existing information is properly referenced if
you are planning to use it
• What is a good reference for citation?
– If you are writing about a scientific subject, peer-reviewed
papers are the best source
– If you are writing about a more general topic, I advise that you
look at a similar article that has “good article” status to see what
types of citations they use

3. Wikipedia Assignment - Reminders
• Blog post AND Wikipedia article are both
marked and are due Friday at 17:00
• If you can’t figure out how to do
something, the best way to get a quick answer
is to look at the code for a different article
– Ask your TAs if you need help!

4. Adding an image
• The best place to get an image is from Wikimedia
Commons:
– http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
– These are images that Wikipedia users make available for free
reuse
• Insert a file into your code:
– [[File:Example.jpg]]
• Type the name of the Wikimedia Commons file into the
“Example.jpg” spot
• Example:
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_(science)
– http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lab_book_-
_Lawrence_Berkeley_National_Laboratory_-_DSC08822.JPG

5. Questions about Wikipedia
Assignment?
Please ask now!
E-mail your TA or Erin questions!
Remember that the best way to figure out how
to code something is to look at another article!

6. Wikipedia
• Wikipedia was formally launched on 15
January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry
Sanger
• Wales set one up and put it online on 10
January 2001

7. Types of Contributors
• The Performer
• The Vandal
• The Gardener

8. Performer
• Frequent edits
• Dramatic self-
portrayal
• Preferentially
edits text that
s/he creates
• Moulds work to
suit her/his ideas

9. Vandal
• Note: vandalism on Wikipedia is prohibited
• Add, remove or change content in a
DELIBERATE attempt to sabotage the
quality/integrity of Wikipedia
– Add irrelevant obscenities, crude humor, blanking
pages and/or inserting obvious nonsense (see
Wikipedia)
• Can result in being blocked

10. Gardener
• Frequent contributions
• Focuses on organising and correcting
• Usually edits in the user pages rather than
public talk pages

11. How does Wikipedia “police” their
articles?
• Users monitor recent
changes to articles
• Acts of vandalism are
usually discovered
quickly

12. Recent Changes
• a specific list numbering recent edits, or a list of
edits made within a given time frame
• Some wikis can filter the list to remove minor
edits and edits made by automatic importing
scripts ("bots")
• the revision history shows previous page versions
and the diff feature highlights the changes
between two revisions
• Using the revision history, an editor can view and
restore a previous version of the article.

13. Revision History
• Wikis are generally designed with the
philosophy of making it easy to correct
mistakes, rather than making it difficult to
make them
• Though wikis are very open, they provide a
means to verify the validity of recent additions
to the body of pages

14. Revision History
• In case unacceptable edits are missed on the "recent
changes" page, some wiki engines provide additional
content control.
• It can be monitored to ensure that a page, or a set of
pages, keeps its quality. A person willing to maintain
pages will be warned of modifications to the pages,
allowing him or her to verify the validity of new
editions quickly. A watchlist is a common
implementation of this.
• Some wikis also implement "patrolled revisions," in
which editors with the requisite credentials can mark
some edits as not vandalism. A "flagged revisions"
system can prevent edits from going live until they
have been reviewed.

15. Comparative studies on the reliability
of Wikipedia
• How does Wikipedia
compare to other
encyclopedias?
– What do we use
encyclopedias for?
– Would we ever cite an
encyclopedia?
http://nowsourcing.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/encyclopedia.jpg

16. Nature Study (2005)
• Single blind study
• 42 experts in scientific fields were given articles
related to their field
– Asked to evaluate the number of errors or omissions
in the article
– Wikipedia average = 4 errors/article
– Brittannica average = 3 errors/article
• Wikipedia: more incorrect facts, articles often
poorly structured
• Brittannica: more ommissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

17. Expert opinions - librarians
Pros Cons
• Found the presentation of • Researchers don’t go
controversial subjects very further than Wikipedia
well rounded when trying to understand a
• Good coverage of current topic
events • Using only Wikipedia = Big
• Negotiation of final version Mac diet
of article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inception_ver3.jpg

18. Academics/science and medicine
Pro Con
• More accurate than • “Inherent reliability issues”
traditional news media • Drug companies may edit
• Good source for first articles to take away side
approximation/starting effects of drugs
point for research • Cited sources – how
accurate are they?
• Readability sometimes an
issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

19. Bias
• Coverage
– Too much coverage in some areas: video
games, popular culture
– “longer entry on lightsabers than the printing
press”
– Liberal bias
– American bias
– Gender bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

20. Conclusions???
• Tweet your conclusions!
• When is it appropriate
to use Wikipedia? Why?
• Are some articles better
than others? Why?
• Is Wikipedia better or
worse than a traditional
encyclopedia? Why?
• @JessL, #ALES204
http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2070/