An article in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia taught us anonymity hurts the knowledge-based society of Augsburg/Dusseldorf, may 27, 2008 – criticism today generally means a testing assessment according to substantially scale, which goes hand in hand with balancing value and demerits of something\”. He cuts the lexicon with this definition in their own flesh. Because the content of a Wikipedia article beyond a probing, scientific assessment from the ground up. It is already predetermined by the nature of the format. So the formula applies: each user can add article and change. Inventory has what is accepted by the community. The source of the information, however, is beside the point. Therefore, proponents of the lexicon of the community firmly believe that their system of checks and balances and correction leads to a product that is far superior to the encyclopedias written by professionals.
A study commissioned by the star in order of scientific information service Cologne seems to confirm this at first glance. 50 randomly selected entries from different categories were reviewed. Criteria such as correctness, completeness, topicality and clarity were rated the school grades. Wikipedia achieved an average grade of 1.7. The entries to the same key words in the online Brockhaus reached only an average rating of 2.7. This relativises founder Jimmy Wales even comparable estimates: Wikipedia is a product that constantly renews itself.
Each page can be obsolete again at any time. We expressly point out that’s why Yes also, not to use Wikipedia as a source for scientific papers\”, in online searches now hardly a way on Wikipedia passes to Wales in an interview with Spiegel Online. So, the term under the domain across ranked google.com throughout the year sixth in the words. The idea of the total knowledge production by anonymous authors of the hobby leads to a gigantic pile of garbage information.