You must do this analysis by answering the specific questions listed. Keep your answers as brief as possible using an "outline" style rather than an elaborate writing style whenever possible. Criteria for Article Selection The articles reviewed for this assignment must report the results of someone's research in an area of social research.
Areas of reliability Article instability and susceptibility to bias are two potential problem areas in a crowdsourced work like Wikipedia The reliability of Wikipedia articles can be measured by the following criteria: Accuracy of information provided within articles Appropriateness of the images provided with the article Appropriateness of the style and focus of the articles  Susceptibility to, and exclusion and removal of, false information Comprehensiveness, scope and coverage within articles and in the range of articles Identification of reputable third-party sources as citations Stability of the articles Susceptibility to editorial and systemic bias Quality of writing The first four of these have been the subjects of various studies of the project, while the presence of bias is strongly disputed, and the prevalence and quality of citations can be tested within Wikipedia.
The most common criticisms were: Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues 3 mentions Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles 3 mentions Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa 1 mention The most common praises were: The articles were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers, a customary practice for journal article reviews.
Based on their reviews, on average the Wikipedia articles were described as containing 4 errors or omissions, while the Britannica articles contained 3. Only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in Britannica.
Wikipedia in fact had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica.
He wrote that Wikipedia is "surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U. However, he stated that Wikipedia often fails to distinguish important from trivial details, and does not provide the best references. A web-based survey conducted from December to May by Larry Press, a professor of Information Systems at California State University at Dominguez Hillsassessed the "accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles".
The survey did not attempt random selection of the participants, and it is not clear how the participants were invited.
Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields.
In overall score, Wikipedia was rated 3. No errors were found, though there were significant omissions. In each case Wikipedia was described as "largely sound", "well handled", "performs well", "good for the bare facts" and "broadly accurate".
One article had "a marked deterioration towards the end" while another had "clearer and more elegant" writing, a third was assessed as less well written but better detailed than its competitors, and a fourth was "of more benefit to the serious student than its Encarta or Britannica equivalents".
No serious errors were noted in Wikipedia articles, whereas serious errors were noted in one Encarta and one Britannica article.
The magazine asked experts to evaluate articles pertaining to their field. A total of four articles were reviewed by three experts.
Wikipedia was comparable to the other encyclopedias, topping the chemistry category. The test was commissioned to a research institute Cologne-based WIND GmbHwhose analysts assessed 50 articles from each encyclopedia covering politics, business, sports, science, culture, entertainment, geography, medicine, history and religion on four criteria accuracy, completeness, timeliness and clarityand judged Wikipedia articles to be more accurate on the average 1.
It concluded, "The quality of content is good in all three cases" and advised Wikipedia users "Be aware that erroneous edits do occur, and check anything that seems outlandish with a second source. But the vast majority of Wikipedia is filled with valuable and accurate information.
It found that, in contradiction of this policy, many claims in these articles were not supported by citations, and that many of those that were sourced to popular media and government websites, rather than to academic journal articles. The study found that while information in these articles tended to be accurate, the articles examined contained many errors of omission.
They asked experts to rate article content with regard to accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability.
Wikipedia scored highest on all criteria except readability, and the authors concluded that Wikipedia is as good as or better than Britannica and a standard textbook. The authors concluded that "Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education".
He then explained that "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window. Other reviewers noted that there is "much variation" but "good content abounds".
It adds that Wikipedia has advantages and limitations, that it has "excellent coverage of technical topics" and articles are "often added quickly and, as a result, coverage of current events is quite good", comparing this to traditional sources which are unable to achieve this task.
The author comments that:Of course you shouldn’t tolerate the “intolerable” What I would advocate is trying to expand one’s definition of tolerable.
Spending one’s effort in a fight, either political or a literal war, is not usually a good way to increase utility. People don’t like to hear I can’t because they think it means I won’t. Saying I can’t suggests that you’re not willing to do what it takes to get the job done.
Analysis Trump’s mission to Mississippi may drag Hyde-Smith across the finish line in Senate race If Tuesday's special election in the state is a referendum on President Trump, Republicans will win.
Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials — and the outcomes within those trials — can . Oct 23, · Broadband providers simply won't offer service if they can't get enough customers to pay for it.
But he said that no analysis has occurred and that cuts had increased by almost 25 percent. The region known as the Middle East has been conquered and reconquered by every super power in the West. This has created a region rich in a culture of resistance and thousands of ethnic groups.