January 24, 2008
Wikipedia Joins Academe to Evaluate Itself
Wikipedia is famous for its philosophy that ordinary people, not just scholars, have expertise to offer the public. But when it comes to evaluating the online encyclopedia itself, Wikipedia officials have apparently concluded that academe is best suited for the task.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, announced today that it will work with a research center — UNU-Merit — run by the United Nations University and the Netherlands’ Maastricht University to conduct its first Wikepedia survey. It will collect data over the next several months on who Wikipedia’s readers and contributors are, why they visit the site, and what they do there. The results are expected to be released this year at the Wikimania conference in Alexandria, Egypt.
“This will help us figure out how to persuade new people to start contributing, and how to keep contributors engaged,” Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, said in a written statement.
Luc L. Soete, director of the research center, said the project fit well with his organization’s mission. He said Wikipedia helped people in developing countries gain access to knowledge. UNU-Merit, based in Tokyo, examines the social and political environments surrounding technological change. —Andrea L. Foster
Posted on Thursday January 24, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Online Colleges to Post Effectiveness of Programs
Next: Information Officer Sees Virtues of Learning in Virtual Worlds
And if Wikipediots don’t like the message that comes back from UNU-Merit, they can always just write a nasty article about the messenger.
— Jon Awbrey Jan 24, 01:57 PM #
I give the UNU-Merit two simple challenges. First, include at least 10 “indefinitely blocked” editors (there are thousands to choose from) in the sample, so that this study isn’t just self-gratifying back-patting. Second, find out who User:SlimVirgin really is. I’ll bet the study fails on both counts.
— Gregory Kohs Jan 25, 09:33 AM #
they might also want to look at why some people have stopped contributing. That would be a better rounded survey.
— Taran Rampersad Jan 25, 11:14 AM #
I hate to say anything good about Wikipedia…but some of the articles are becoming quite scholarly; I am starting to assign a few for classes (the article on Julian “the Apostate” comes to mind as an example and of course my own). I think W. is moving in a good direction that will be increasingly useful in academia.
— John W Jan 25, 02:57 PM #
Wikipedia is a great concept. Sure it has had growing pains but what instituion hasn’t? Don’t shoot the messenger nor those who ask embarrasing questions.
I think this evaluation step is a good one. Wilipedia has been cautioned to be honest — let’s give them a chance and we’ll see what develops.
— Gustavo Mellander Jan 25, 03:57 PM #
Wikipedia will not be reliable and therefore satiasfactorily used as a reference until all posted submissions are first reviewed by at least three expert referees. But, of course, in general: Who assigns ecyclopedias, anyway? They are intended for lay people, not for serious researchers.
— llevitt Jan 26, 04:06 PM #