Articles on less technical subjects, such as the social sciences, humanities, and culture, have been known to deal with misinformation cycles, cognitive bias, coverage discrepancies, and editor disputes. The prevalence of non-neutral or conflict-of-interest editing and the use of Wikipedia for "revenge editing" has attracted publicity for inserting false, biased, or defamatory content into articles, especially biographies of living people.
#Marked safe meme series#
A series of studies from Harvard Business School in 20 found Wikipedia "significantly more biased" than Encyclopædia Britannica but attributed the finding more to the length of the online encyclopedia as opposed to slanted editing. An ideological bias on Wikipedia has also been identified on both conscious and subconscious levels.
The majority of the encyclopedia is written by male editors, leading to a gender bias in coverage and the make up of the editing community has prompted concerns about racial bias, spin bias, corporate bias, and national bias, among others. Its editing model facilitates multiple systemic biases: namely, selection bias, inclusion bias, participation bias, and group-think bias.
The inclusion of false or fabricated content has, at times, lasted for years on Wikipedia due to its volunteer editorship. Two years after the project was started, in 2003, an IBM study found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly-so quickly that most users will never see its effects". Select assessments of its reliability have examined how quickly vandalism – content perceived by editors to constitute false or misleading information – is removed. The false information lasted for six years and was propagated by hundreds of websites, several newspapers, and even a few books published by university presses. In July 2008, a then-17-year-old student added an invented nickname to the Wikipedia article coati as a private joke, calling them "Brazilian aardvarks". Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has improved over time it has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s. Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results, with findings varied and inconsistent. The online encyclopedia has been criticized for its factual reliability, principally regarding its content, presentation, and editorial processes. The reliability of the project has been tested statistically through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in its editing process. This editing model is highly concentrated, as 77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors, a majority of whom have chosen to remain anonymous. Wikipedia carries the general disclaimer that it can be " edited by anyone at any time" and maintains an inclusion threshold of " verifiability, not truth". It is written and edited by volunteer editors who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and veracity of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition. Article instability and susceptibility to cognitive bias are two potential problem areas in a crowdsourced work like Wikipedia.
0 kommentar(er)
