Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, it has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, which allows any user to edit its encyclopedic pages, has led to ...
Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other content on Wikipedia is not typically controversial, since all of Wikipedia is open and freely usable. However, research projects that are disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privileges.
Wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very ...
Research topics have included the reliability of the encyclopedia and various forms of systemic bias; social aspects of the Wikipedia community (including administration, policy, and demographics); the encyclopedia as a dataset for machine learning; and whether Wikipedia trends might predict or influence human behaviour.
The 2014 edition of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's official student handbook, Academic Integrity at MIT, informs students that Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source, stating, "the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable ...
"Think. Check. Submit." poster by an international initiative to help researchers avoid predatory publishing. Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing [1] [2] or deceptive publishing, [3] is an exploitative academic publishing business model, where the journal or publisher prioritizes self-interest at the expense of scholarship.
Wikipedia has been the center of a much heated and critical debate in academia pertaining to the relevance, accuracy, and effectiveness of using information found online in academic research, especially in places where information is constantly being created, revised, and deleted by people of various backgrounds, ranging from experts to curious learners.
The original title of the letter, as submitted to CACM, was "A Case Against the Goto Statement", but CACM editor Niklaus Wirth changed the title to "Goto Statement Considered Harmful". [6] Regarding this new title, Donald Knuth quipped that " Dr. Goto cheerfully complained that he was always being eliminated."