Students are told not to use Wikipedia for research. But it’s a trustworthy source
At a time when it’s increasingly difficult to separate truth from falsehood, Wikipedia is an accessible tool for fact-checking and fighting misinformation.
Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - Wikipedia
Pagina over Wikipedia-klonen, in het Engels
Schrijven voor Wikipedia (ISBN: 9789463560795) - Van Duuren Media
Wikipedia is een internetencyclopedie met als doel iedereen waar ook ter wereld vrije toegang te geven tot alle menselijke kennis. Het is het grootste samenwerkingsproject op het gebied van kennis en educatie ooit. De Nederlandstalige Wikipedia bevat...
Kennis is macht – De Groene Amsterdammer
Wikipedia begon met een grote belofte: radicale openheid zou mensen bevrijden en gelijker maken. Toch ontstond er een cultuur van strenge poortwachters. Zij houden de pen stevig vast – en ze lijken allemaal erg veel op elkaar.
How Accurate Is Wikipedia?
When you Google the question "How accurate is Wikipedia?" the highest-ranking result is, as you might expect, a Wikipedia article on the topic ("Reliability of Wikipedia"). That page contains a comprehensive list of studies undertaken to assess the accuracy of the crowd-sourced encyclopedia since its founding 10 years ago. Of course, if you find yourself on this page, you might worry that the list itself may not be trustworthy. Well, the good news is that almost all those studies tell us that it probably is.
When should courts rely on Wikipedia? - The Washington Post
Wikipedia’s valuable role in today’s technological society cannot be denied. Our society benefits from the fast, free, and easily-accessible information it provides. A wealth of information is now available at the touch of a few key strokes, and a community of Wikipedia editors serves to increase the accuracy and truth of that information, promoting the public good through those efforts. However, in my view, Wikipedia properly serves the judiciary only as a compendium — a source for sources — and not as authority for any disputed, dispositive, or legally consequential matter.
Wikipedia use - nothing to be ashamed about - Monash University
Academics and students alike should be making better use of Wikipedia, a major study of digital technology use in Higher Education has recommended.
Study shows Wikipedia Accuracy is 99.5%
Indeed, it seems like a good place to start. They analyzed articles on drugs, drawing every piece of relevant information, as well as references, revision history and readability. Their conclusion is that the accuracy of drug information on Wikipedia was 99.7%±0.2% when compared to the textbook data. However, even though the articles were very accurate, they weren’t fully complete. Scientists rate the completeness of articles at 83.8±1.5%. However, completeness had a huge variation, ranging between 68.0% and 91.0%. This difference shows that Wikipedia is not always the best resource to draw complete information from, but it always provides over two thirds of the whole story. Furthermore, from the drug information missing in Wikipedia, 62.5% was rated as didactically non-relevant in a qualitative re-evaluation study. This is crucial especially in areas which change a lot, such as pharmacology. The fact that you have this huge resource from which you can draw massive amounts of information is remarkable. The fact that it is open source, ad free, community driven (though moderated) and still manages to have an almost perfect accuracy is simply amazing! The only problem I have with this study is the sample size. Of course, it’s a tough analysis to conduct, but 100 drugs is still not enough to draw definite conclusions.