Wikipedia:External peer review/Chesney 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility (November 2006)
- Source: Thomas Chesney (Information Systems, Nottingham University Business School)
- Date: 2006-11-06
- Title: An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility
- URLs: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/
[edit] Findings
- "five reported seeing mistakes and one of those five reported spelling mistakes rather than factual errors"
[edit] Response
Email sent asking for a list of the articles with errors (or a list of the errors) if possible, so we can create a to-do list similar to Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors. -- Jeandré, 2006-11-29t08:10z
- Bleh... I had not noticed this yet, and just sent another. Circeus 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Same here. Any replies?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I received an initial reply without a list of articles or errors but the possibility of some more information later; but nothing since then. I suggest that only 1 person, User:Piotrus, does a follow up. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-17t06:07z
- I got a reply, which sais, basically, that "About the errors, the questionnaire was completed anonymously so there is no list of the articles that contained the errors, let alone the errors themselves." With that, I think we can archive the study, as with such design it is not really a usable EPR.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly a useful study then. How can they be sure that those who found Wikipedia inaccurate were accurate about the inaccuracies in Wikipedia? Ah. That last sentence felt good to write, though I suppose it is not so nice for those who read it. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I got a reply, which sais, basically, that "About the errors, the questionnaire was completed anonymously so there is no list of the articles that contained the errors, let alone the errors themselves." With that, I think we can archive the study, as with such design it is not really a usable EPR.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I received an initial reply without a list of articles or errors but the possibility of some more information later; but nothing since then. I suggest that only 1 person, User:Piotrus, does a follow up. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-17t06:07z
- Same here. Any replies?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
