User:Matthias Süßen/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia @ Kiel University[edit]

Seminar: MNF-Geogr-211: Human Geography of Climate Change (060301)

Tutor[edit]

Participating students[edit]

Articles in progress[edit]

Wikipedia[edit]

greenland is not that green

Wikipedia suffers much criticism to this day. The reliability of Wikipedia has been frequently questioned and often assessed and you can find tons of studies about it:

A study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia's scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[1] Encyclopædia Britannica disputed the Nature study,[2] and Nature replied with a formal response and point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[3] Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[4] toxicology,[5] oncology,[6] pharmaceuticals,[7][8] and psychiatry[9] were compared to professional and peer-reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard.

Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology[10] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012),[9] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised concerns about reliability.[11]

Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[12] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[13]Quoted material.

— Reliability of Wikipedia: Revision history

But Wikipedia's reputation in modern science remains bad. On the other hand people use Wikipedia to copy whole texts. They would never admit it. However, Wikipedia has gaps and lacks detailed and accurate articles about many topics including those that are relevant to informed citizens. And that's where you come in. We need your expertise. Wikipedia can only get better with more edits, more media, and more translations.

Good article criteria[edit]

  • Definition of the term in a sentence
  • Meaningful introduction section (Google!)
  • Present central meanings in subchapters
  • Explain the historical development of the term
  • formulate clearly and simply
  • Explain/link technical terms
  • Evidence from reputable sources
  • appropriate length!
  • avoid unnecessary phrases like fillers and modal words
  • coherence and consistency
  • Fitrst things first: Order by importance
  • Focus your writing topic by answering the journalistic questions (five W's and H) (as many as fit): Who, what, when, where and how?
  • Embedding in specialist discourse

Wikipedia help pages[edit]

You can also download a very helpful PDF which contains the essential elements to help you get to know how Wikipedia works.

OR have a look at The Grande Guide to Wikipedia - an excellent alternative introduction to Wikipedia.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Giles, J. (2005). "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head: Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries". Nature. 438 (7070): 900–1. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..900G. doi:10.1038/438900a. PMID 16355180. S2CID 4417563. The study (which was not in itself peer-reviewed) was cited in many news articles such as this: "Wikipedia survives research test". BBC News. BBC. December 15, 2005.
  2. ^ Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature Encyclopædia Britannica, March 2006
  3. ^ Nature (2006-03-30). "Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica". Nature.com. Archived from the original on 2006-11-05. Retrieved 2012-03-19.
  4. ^ Wood, A; Struthers, K (2010). "Pathology education, Wikipedia and the Net generation". Medical Teacher. 32 (7): 618–620. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2010.497719. PMID 20653388. S2CID 218876419. We have identified Wikipedia as an informative and accurate source for Pathology education and believe that Wikipedia is potentially an important learning tool for of the 'Net Generation'.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Tox09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Leithner, A; Maurer-Ertl, W; Glehr, M; Friesenbichler, J; Leithner, K; Windhager, R (Jul–Aug 2010). "Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. 17 (4): 373–4. doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.004507. PMC 2995655. PMID 20595302.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Drug08 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Kräenbring, Jona; Penza, Tika Monzon; Gutmann, Joanna; Muehlich, Susanne; Zolk, Oliver; Wojnowski, Leszek; Maas, Renke; Engelhardt, Stefan; Sarikas, Antonio (September 24, 2014). "Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology". PLOS ONE. 9 (9): e106930. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106930. PMC 4174509. PMID 25250889.
  9. ^ a b Reavley, N. J.; MacKinnon, A. J.; Morgan, A. J.; Alvarez-Jimenez, M.; Hetrick, S. E.; Killackey, E.; Nelson, B.; Purcell, R.; Yap, M. B. H.; Jorm, A. F. (2011). "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: A comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources". Psychological Medicine. 42 (8): 1753–1762. doi:10.1017/S003329171100287X. hdl:11343/59260. PMID 22166182. S2CID 13329595.
  10. ^ Rajagopalan, M. S.; Khanna, V. K.; Leiter, Y.; Stott, M.; Showalter, T. N.; Dicker, A. P.; Lawrence, Y. R. (2011). "Patient-Oriented Cancer Information on the Internet: A Comparison of Wikipedia and a Professionally Maintained Database". Journal of Oncology Practice. 7 (5): 319–323. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000209. PMC 3170066. PMID 22211130.
  11. ^ Azer, S. A. (2014). "Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia". European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 26 (2): 155–63. doi:10.1097/MEG.0000000000000003. PMID 24276492. S2CID 7760287.
  12. ^ history flow: results IBM Collaborative User Experience Research Group, 2003
  13. ^ Fernanda B. Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Kushal Dave: Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 575–582, Vienna 2004, ISBN 1-58113-702-8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Matthias_Süßen/Sandbox&oldid=1092651072"