After that nonsense "Nature Study" a while back, which Wikipedians have used to spread the clearly false notion that WP was on a par with Britannica, someone has done a new study:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/view...ntentId=1674221

But this was a study by librarians, and we all know that they have an Anti-wikipedia bias. They don't want competition. They're simply astroturfing so that they can collect massive late fee royalties, or something. Clear COI.

Lousy obstructionist librarians refuse to play their role as fellow information professionals.

Daniel: Niice!

I cannot take credit. I found it on the web while searching for info on Newyorkbrad.

Its a peer reviewed journal, and those guys are well known for crucifying librarians. They have rigour coming out of their arses. Looks like straight reporting to me. It also presents a consistent view with what just about every editor here has already found for themselves.

So now we have another journal that independently supports the view that WP is significantly inferior, and the problem is likely to get worse. WP are pirating ideas, and presenting ideas totally inaccurately, and that doesn't even take into account the most often warped arrangement of paragraphs and sections of the most "interested party" articles.

WP is about misinformation. The Web doesn't have to be full of IP abusive and misinforming pseudo-encyclopedic articles, but Wikipedia is making it so.

The web probably does have to be that way, unfortunately. It's a result of being open for anyone. What there doesn't have to be is a reputable organization (WMF is, although they shouldn't be) indicating that said things are really good encyclopedic info.

Somebody needs to add this study to WP:FAIL, under the section "Outside scientific studies confirming Wikipedia failure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAIL

80% is pretty much very low, thinking 20% isen't accurate. Some articles can go down as low as 40% probably.

Wikipedia is sorely in need of an uptick in accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media.

The leading French Print Encyclopedia Quid canceled publication today, citing competition from Wikipedia for lack of sales.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/f...dia-784420.html



Meaning that a legitimate body of work has gone out of print, to be replaced by something with "major accuracy concerns" with "inaccuracies in eight out of nine examined entries", outrageous Conflict of Interest discrepancies, and an endless flood of cases of serious defamation.

And people wonder why we criticize Wikipedia so aggressively?

This is what is at stake.

That the concept of a scholarly resource controlled by sysops is fatally flawed should have been obvious on its face. That it wasn't might perhaps be attributed to the utopian notion that it wouldn't be "run" by anyone. By failing to plan for and institute the structures to produce and manage quality content, they guaranteed that sysops - the only ones with any power - are left in charge. By detaching those powers from any responsibility, they guaranteed that they would too often be used abusively, and more to the point of this discussion, negligently.

I read wisdom in those words.

Extremely pleased with the thesis, Proabivouac.

Some wisdom, but not completely true.

There's no denying that Wikipedia was set up in accordance with idiotic theories about social behavior. As I've remarked elsewhere, it seems to be a combination of naive Marxist and Anarchist assumptions about human rationality combined with naive 19th century Liberal assumptions about human rationality. Both paradigms Marxism and Anarchism on the one hand, and 19th century Liberalism (under laissez-faire capitalism) put forth essentially the same idea: Human beings are inherently rational and cooperative, and if systems are set up where they can cooperate (Communism or Laissez-faire capitalism), they generally will cooperate to achieve the optimum outcome. Each time either system fails, they rebut the failure essentially with the same argument, "You're doing it wrong," or "That's not TRUE Communism\Capitalism!"

None of those running Wikipedia, to my knowledge, is a Sociologist, but they are very politically-minded. Jimmy Wales is an Objectivist and a Libertarian, with Florence Nibart-Devouard who is a far-left Socialist. Even if either of them were Sociologists, Sociology itself isn't a particular hard science. And thus attempts at social engineering are very difficult, typically always doomed to failure.

Still, if Wikipedia is going to be an attempt at building an encyclopedia through social manipulation, it would make sense for it to actually be built on real science, not just discussions by a bunch of kids. If that is done, there's a small margin of probability by which it might improve.

How similar is the French Wikipedia to the English one?

In other words, Wikipedia is rife with plagiarism. But then Daniel Brandt knew this already, didn't he?