![]() ![]() In the control trial, summaries of 154 Irish Supreme Court cases were written up as Wikipedia articles, and then randomised into two groups: 77 treatment articles that were uploaded to Wikipedia and 77 control articles that were not made public, over the period 2019/20. The research, published on 18 January, finds that the presence of a Wikipedia article about Irish Supreme Court decisions makes it more likely that the corresponding case will be cited as a precedent by judges in subsequent decisions. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), based in London, recently decided to appoint a ‘Wikimedian in residence’ whose job is to disseminate medical research and increase the accuracy of medical content on Wikipedia. This could be particularly serious in legal settings, where it could lead to incorrect judicial decisions…” the authors state. “While our results report on the dissemination of correct information via Wikipedia, they also make it highly plausible that false information could spread via Wikipedia. This reinforces the importance for public policy of ensuring the accuracy and reliability of UGC, which is already the subject of a broad debate, they state. ![]() Wikipedia’s influence is stronger than was previously known, the researchers believe. ![]() While these Wikipedia articles are easily accessible, they have unknown provenance and reliability and, therefore, using them in professional settings is problematic, the paper continues. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |