Some examples of the methods to estimate reliability include test-retest reliabilityinternal consistency reliability, and parallel-test reliability.
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.The Historical Reliability of the Gospels [Craig L. Blomberg] on srmvision.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
For over twenty years, Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels has provided a useful antidote to many of the toxic effects of skeptical criticism of .
Jun 11, · I am Me. In all the world, there is no one else exactly like me. Everything that comes out of me is authentically mine, because I alone chose it -- I own everything about me: my body, my feelings, my mouth, my voice, all my actions, whether they be to others or myself.
Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (aka Kendall’s W) is a measure of agreement among raters defined as follows.. Definition 1: Assume there are m raters rating k subjects in rank order from 1 to srmvision.com r ij = the rating rater j gives to subject srmvision.com each subject i, let R i.
let be the mean of the R i and let R be the squared deviation, i.e.. Now define Kendall’s W by. Gait & Posture is a vehicle for the publication of up-to-date basic and clinical research on all aspects of locomotion and srmvision.com topics.
The original DiSC profile. This is a paper-based assessment with a item forced choice questionnaire. (previously the DiSC® Series Personal Profile System®). Reliability is a necessary ingredient for determining the overall validity of a scientific experiment and enhancing the strength of the results.
Debate between social and pure scientists, concerning reliability, is robust and ongoing.