The quality of content on Wikipedia.org may seem like an obvious and easy target for Skeptical Monkey. Wikipedia does not have guidelines for its contributors, inviting anyone with a computer and Internet connection to submit their own content to the site (regardless of its accuracy).

“Perfection is not required.”

Sensing weaknesses in Wikipedia’s models, several other online encyclopedia-style wiki’s have formed, attempting to succeed where they feel Wikipedia has failed. Veropedia and Citizendium are two examples that focus on leveraging expert knowledge in their pages. But do a few subject matter experts really produce better quality content than the public?

Myth: A small number of knowledgeable contributors produce better Wikipedia content than a large group of ordinary contributors.

This is a conclusion some Wikipedia skeptics jump to. Regardless of credentials (or knowledge), Wikipedia contributors are allowed to edit every entry on the website. A common mechanic and a NASA scientist have the same clout on Wikipedia’s entry on human spaceflight. How could a large number of anonymous edits result in accurate content?

Contradictory Evidence

In October 2007, HP published a study concluding that the best Wikipedia articles had the most edits and higher cooperation rates among contributors. HP’s researchers analyzed Wikipedia 1,211 of Wikipedia’s ‘best articles’ (as rated by Wikipedia’s community) based on accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style. Wikipedia has these entries “undergo a rigorous review process and [they] are demoted if they do not continue to uphold these high standards.” (Cooperation and quality in Wikipedia, p. 5)
HP’s research report showed that each article showed evidence of a high number of continuos edits on these top pages. Despite this high number of edits (many made by non-experts), these pages continue to meet Wikipedia’s high standards. Additionally, HP’s report showed a high level of cooperation in Wikipedia’s TalkBack pages (rather than on the live site, sometimes leading to ‘edit wars’).

Conclusion

The report suggests articles on Wikipedia evolve from continuous edits, rather than plateau or decrease in quality. Discussion is conducted on Talkback pages, helping ensure that only the best content ends up on an entry’s front page.

Additionally, Wikipedia can benefit from the crowd. James Surowiecki, author of Wisdom of the Crowds, questions whether “only people we recognize as experts should have a say in tough decisions.” This includes content from Veropedia and Citizendium’s crowds.

This leads up to a single conclusion: Content on Wikipedia’s top pages benefit from every edit made to it, regardless of who made the edit. With improved cooperation among its contributors, the more edits a Wikipedia entry has the better.

Questions

It is important to note that the HP study focuses only on 1,211 entries, approximately 0.081% of Wikipedia’s content. Therefore, the conclusions it draws cannot necessarily be applied to all Wikipedia entries.In addition to this, I was unable to answer the question as to why HP would conduct a study about Wikipedia’s content? Is there a hidden motive?

These two factors could skew the results of HP’s study and the meaning of its conclusions.

You can follow the discussion to this entry through its RSS 2.0 feed. This feed will update you with the latest comments in the discussion below. Of course, you may unsubscribe any time you'd like. Comments are currently open, fire away!