Difference between revisions of "On Trusting Wikipedia"
(Creating a new page - On Trusting Wikipedia) |
(Wikilinks) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''On Trusting Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2009, written by P. D. Magnus. | + | '''On Trusting Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2009, written by [[P. D. Magnus]]. |
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
| − | Given the fact that many people use Wikipedia , authors should ask: Can authors trust it? The empirical evidence suggests that Wikipedia articles are sometimes quite good but that they vary a great deal. As such, it is wrong to ask for a monolithic verdict on Wikipedia . Interacting with Wikipedia involves assessing where it is likely to be reliable and where not. Author identify five strategies that authors use to assess claims from other sources and argue that, to a greater of lesser degree, Wikipedia frustrates all of them. Interacting responsibly with something like Wikipedia requires new epistemic methods and strategies. | + | Given the fact that many people use [[Wikipedia]] , authors should ask: Can authors trust it? The empirical evidence suggests that Wikipedia articles are sometimes quite good but that they vary a great deal. As such, it is wrong to ask for a monolithic verdict on Wikipedia . Interacting with Wikipedia involves assessing where it is likely to be reliable and where not. Author identify five strategies that authors use to assess claims from other sources and argue that, to a greater of lesser degree, Wikipedia frustrates all of them. Interacting responsibly with something like Wikipedia requires new epistemic methods and strategies. |
Revision as of 09:14, 16 October 2019
On Trusting Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2009, written by P. D. Magnus.
Overview
Given the fact that many people use Wikipedia , authors should ask: Can authors trust it? The empirical evidence suggests that Wikipedia articles are sometimes quite good but that they vary a great deal. As such, it is wrong to ask for a monolithic verdict on Wikipedia . Interacting with Wikipedia involves assessing where it is likely to be reliable and where not. Author identify five strategies that authors use to assess claims from other sources and argue that, to a greater of lesser degree, Wikipedia frustrates all of them. Interacting responsibly with something like Wikipedia requires new epistemic methods and strategies.
