April 4th, Book Updates E-mail this blog post to a friend Yankee stock markets had something to impart Wednesday.
A study at Dartmouth College of the English Wikipedia noted that, contrary to usual social expectations, anonymous editors were some of Wikipedia's most productive contributors of valid content.
Wikipedia has harnessed the work of millions of people to produce the world's largest knowledge-based site along with software to support it, resulting in more than nineteen million articles written, across more than different language versions, in fewer than twelve years.
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.
For instance, "50 percent of [US] physicians report that they've consulted 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 non-peer-reviewed study was based on Nature's selection of 42 articles on scientific topics, including biographies of well-known scientists.
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. The study concluded that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries",  although Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured".
Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that some of the extracts were compilations that included articles written for the youth version, that Nature did not check the factual assertions of its reviewers, and that many points the reviewers labeled as errors were differences of editorial opinion.
Britannica further stated that "While the heading proclaimed that 'Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries,' the numbers buried deep in the body of the article said precisely the opposite: Wikipedia in fact had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica.
As we demonstrate below, Nature's research grossly exaggerated Britannica's inaccuracies, so we cite this figure only to point out the slanted way in which the numbers were presented. 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. He also complained about Wikipedia's lack of "persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose".
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. Wikipedia's articles were compared to a consensus list of themes culled from four reference works in philosophy.
No errors were found, though there were significant omissions.Here are four ways to reach a man deeply and make him want to commit and devote himself fully to you.
Take The Quiz: Does He Really Love You? Click here to take our quick (and shockingly accurate) “Does He Really Love You” Quiz right now and find out if he Really loves you.
The Concept and Teaching of Place-Value Richard Garlikov. An analysis of representative literature concerning the widely recognized ineffective learning of "place-value" by American children arguably also demonstrates a widespread lack of understanding of the concept of place-value among elementary school arithmetic teachers and among researchers themselves.
Back to top A cell is a flexible type of variable that can hold any type of variable. A cell array is simply an array of those cells. It's somewhat confusing so let's make an analogy. A cell is like a bucket.
You can throw anything you want into the bucket: a string, an integer, a double, an. Jan 03, · Forbes Insights: Are You Overlooking Income Opportunities? Open Your Eyes To Closed-End Funds A Surefire Plan to Figure Out What You Really Want. I didn’t enjoy writing copy for. Yankee stock markets had something to impart Wednesday.
Listen to the music, they said, not the noise.
|Usage note||Please go check out her site. Since I was a kid, I wanted to make books for children.|
|Careers - News and Advice from AOL Finance||This work is available here free, so that those who cannot afford it can still have access to it, and so that no one has to pay before they read something that might not be what they really are seeking. But if you find it meaningful and helpful and would like to contribute whatever easily affordable amount you feel it is worth, please do do.|
|Technical Difficulties?||Answer by Ellen Vranawriter, blogger: Advertisement This is the approach I use to generate content and ideas.|
Watch the flame, not the smoke. And, yeah, focus on the forest, not the trees. A loss of points in the morning turned into a gain of after lunch. Despite Trump’s trade war, Facebook’s.
If you're struggling to really figure out what you want to do with yourself, volunteer work is a way to try out a ton of different jobs without committing to any of them.