موثوقية ويكيبيديا (Arabic Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "موثوقية ويكيبيديا" in Arabic language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Arabic rank
1st place
1st place
2nd place
5th place
4th place
6th place
234th place
251st place
18th place
33rd place
43rd place
2nd place
8th place
10th place
7th place
23rd place
40th place
15th place
low place
low place
3,700th place
1,478th place
3rd place
8th place
12th place
25th place
456th place
830th place
228th place
591st place
2,112th place
1,654th place
146th place
473rd place
1,131st place
1,821st place
415th place
424th place
41st place
177th place
24th place
55th place
170th place
599th place
731st place
449th place
388th place
867th place
low place
low place
2,584th place
2,073rd place
79th place
196th place
5,099th place
4,814th place
680th place
2,948th place
low place
low place
8,732nd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
4,161st place
8,862nd place
low place
low place
1,398th place
3,208th place
low place
low place
20th place
22nd place
6th place
3rd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
3,843rd place
4,174th place
low place
low place

archive.org

arstechnica.com

  • John Timmer (18 أكتوبر 2007). "Anonymous "good samaritans" produce Wikipedia's best content, says study". Ars Technica. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2008-12-11. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2007-10-27. Good samaritans with less than 100 edits made higher-quality contributions than those with registered accounts and equal amounts of content. In fact, anonymous contributors with a single edit had the highest quality of any group. But quality steadily declined, and more-frequent anonymous contributors were anything but Samaritans; their contributions generally didn't survive editing... The authors also recognize that contributions in the form of stubs on obscure topics might survive unaltered indefinitely, inflating the importance of single contributions...Objective ratings of quality are difficult, and it's hard to fault the authors for attempting to find an easily-measured proxy for it. In the absence of independent correlation, however, it's not clear that the measurement used actually works as a proxy. Combined with the concerns regarding anonymous contributor identity, there are enough problems with this study that the original question should probably be considered unanswered, regardless of how intuitively satisfying these results are.

ascopubs.org

bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

bbc.co.uk

bbc.com

books.google.com

britannica.com

corporate.britannica.com

cbslocal.com

connecticut.cbslocal.com

doi.org

dukechronicle.com

media.dukechronicle.com

fsu.edu

mailer.fsu.edu

harvard.edu

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

ibm.com

researcher.watson.ibm.com

insidehighered.com

lemire.me

libraryjournal.com

mit.edu

alumni.media.mit.edu

nature.com

newyorker.com

nih.gov

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

nytimes.com

  • Katharine Q. Seelye (5 ديسمبر 2005). "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar". نيويورك تايمز. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2014-09-07.
  • Garner، Dwight (1 يوليو 2014). "Online, the Lying Is Easy. In 'Virtual Unreality,' Charles Seife Unfriends Gullibility". The New York Times. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-03-31. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2017-06-04.

philb.com

plos.org

journals.plos.org

rice.edu

neologisms.rice.edu

s23.org

sagepub.com

journals.sagepub.com

salon.com

taipeitimes.com

  • Noam Cohen (27 فبراير 2007). "Wikipedia on an academic hit list". NY Times News Service. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-03-31. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2007-04-16. Middlebury professor Thomas Beyer, of the Russian department, said: 'I guess I am not terribly impressed by anyone citing an encyclopedia as a reference point, but I am not against using it as a starting point.'

tcd.ie

tara.tcd.ie

tcsdaily.com

techdebug.com

theannals.com

theatlantic.com

theguardian.com

theregister.com

thetimes.co.uk

usatoday.com

usatoday30.usatoday.com

vermonttoday.com

  • Youngwood، Susan (1 أبريل 2007). "Wikipedia: What do they know; when do they know it, and when can we trust it?". Rutland Herald. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2016-11-08. Perhaps the most important thing to understand about Wikipedia—both its genius and its Achilles heel—is that anyone can create or modify an entry. Anyone means your 10-year-old neighbor or a Nobel Prize winner—or an editor like me, who is itching to correct a grammar error in that Wikipedia entry that I just quoted. Entries can be edited by numerous people and be in constant flux. What you read now might change in five minutes. Five seconds, even.

web.archive.org

webcitation.org

wikidata.org

wikipediocracy.com

wsj.com

xkcd.com