Wikipedia/Bibliography: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John R. Brews
imported>John R. Brews
(→‎Papers: Supplementary info)
Line 3: Line 3:
*Priedhorsky, R., J. Chen, S.K. Lam, K. Panciera, L. Terveen and J. Riedl (2007) '[http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1316624.1316663 Creating, destroying, and restoring value in Wikipedia]'. ''Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work''.
*Priedhorsky, R., J. Chen, S.K. Lam, K. Panciera, L. Terveen and J. Riedl (2007) '[http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1316624.1316663 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.
*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}}
:::{{cite web |title=Supplementary information to accompany Nature news article “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”  |url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=supplementary%20information%20to%20accompany%20nature%20news%20article&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fnature%2Fjournal%2Fv438%2Fn7070%2Fextref%2F438900a-s1.doc&ei=hW-rTpyNNqzJiQLatoGhCw&usg=AFQjCNEKlxA725_6cwBK-c-w2GApqRGNHA&cad=rja |accessdate=2011-10-28 |date=22 December 2005 |publisher=Nature}} 
::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}}.

Revision as of 22:21, 28 October 2011

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Video [?]
Activity [?]
 
A list of key readings about Wikipedia.
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.
Supplementary information to accompany Nature news article “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”. Nature (22 December 2005). Retrieved on 2011-10-28.
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.

Books

  • 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).
  • 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 inventing its own jargon, creating a "tiny priesthood that can edit".