Header Ad Module

**PeterEmpowerEd** · 30-10-2009, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Marc View Post

This video details out social media facts and figures that are hard to ignore.

Well, this "fact" about Wikipedia stuck out to me as a pretty bold claim:

"Studies show it's more accurate than Encyclipaedia Britannica"

...which seemed, well, implausible to me.

So I followed the recommended path to socialnomics.com and diving down through a few more links got to this, from the author of the video, quoting his "sources":

Source: www.wikipedia.org - calculated based on # articles per language category; Colorado State University Wikipedia Accuracy Study; open debate and of course very biased information is also found on this Wikipedia Accuracy page.

Yeah, as I thought, he overstated it. ("open debate" - sheesh!)

Key on that Wikipedia Accuracy page was this pearl:

Because Wikipedia is open to collaborative editing and can be edited anonymously, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003 (not long after Wikipedia started in 2001, see History of Wikipedia) found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly--so quickly that most users will never see its effects " [1] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities." [2]

Studies [which?] suggest that Wikipedia's reliability has improved in recent years, and it is increasingly used as a tertiary source.

An investigation reported in the journal Nature in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors."[3] These claims have been disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[4]
[my emphasis]

Even Wikipedia doesn't cite the "studies" showing its legendary accuracy ... "reliability has improved" (!?!?)

Last word to the video producer, Eric Q:

If I had to do it again I would have made this say as accurate rather than more – obviously some articles will be more accurate (think of the realtime update of Michael Jackson’s death, but also some will be less accurate.

Umm, like, yeah! - Peter Aranyi

**PeterEmpowerEd** · 30-10-2009, 05:22 PM

Oh crikey, reading on through the comments on his 'sources' post, I found these interchanges/'corrections':

Colin Fast // August 11, 2009 at 6:46 pm | Reply

Cool video, but I have an extremely difficult time believing this stat:

80% of companies are using LinkedIn as their primary tool to find employees.

How can that possibly be true? I’d guess that 80% of companies have never even heard of LinkedIn.

equalman // September 4, 2009 at 3:00 am | Reply

Colin: Thanks for the post. This should read 80% use LinkedIn as “a” primary tool not as “their” primary tool. I’m traveling right now, but I also believe they updated the study recently so that it’s higher than 80%, but I’ll have to fact check that when I get out of this “tin box.” However I believe I list the source in below the article. Thanks for the feedback!

Howard Weaver // August 14, 2009 at 3:14 am | Reply

You’ve misstated your data.

I checked the very first fact the video cites — 96% of Gen Y use social media.

The data you reference actually says 96% of Gen Y *who are already online* have tried social media at least once. And they include email as social media.

That’s a far cry from what you claimed. It makes me wonder if the rest of your “research” is equally sloppy and misleading.

equalman // August 14, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Reply

Howard – thanks for the interest. Keep the feedback/comments/challenges coming as it will only make version 2 that much stronger. Thanks again for the interest/help! Have a great weekend.

How far does this have to go before we call it what it is: hyperbole?

Peter Aranyi

Header Ad Module

Announcement

Social Media Revolution Video

Social Media Revolution Video

Comment

Comment