Download - How to evaluate a Wikipedia article
![Page 2: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Wikipedia is a useful source… but not all 4.5 million Wikipedia articles are equal quality!
![Page 3: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
How is Wikipedia built?
• By volunteers, working over time• Anyone can contribute (including you!)• There are lots of guidelines for writing good
articles• But every article is in progress…
![Page 4: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Core Wikipedia guidelines
• Neutrality: articles should be neutral, they shouldn’t take a point of view
• Verifiability: articles should have good outside sources to verify facts
• No original research: Wikipedia isn’t a place to publish new theories
• Style: clear writing and structure
![Page 5: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Everything’s in progress
• Some articles have been worked on by volunteers for a long time, and are good quality
• Some articles are just getting started, or don’t yet follow Wikipedia guidelines, and are not good quality
• How do you tell the difference?
![Page 6: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Let’s look at a high quality article
![Page 7: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
This article is featured: note the star. This means Wikipedia editors think it is high quality. But how would you evaluate it?
![Page 8: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
First look at the article introduction. Does it summarize the article and topic?
![Page 9: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Next look at the table of contents. Is the article well-structured? Are any important aspects missing?
![Page 10: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Scroll down and look at the text. Is the writing clear? Are important facts and statements sourced to references? Is the article well-illustrated?
![Page 11: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Keep scrolling down and look at the reference section. Are there several references? What is being cited: webpages and newspaper articles, or scholarly books and articles?
![Page 12: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
At the very bottom of the article, is there an “external links” or “further reading” section (or both)? Do these sections direct you to other useful information resources to learn more about the topic?
![Page 13: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Next, scroll up to the top of the article and click on the “talk” link
![Page 14: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
This will take you to the “talk” page, where editors discuss the article, as well as rate its quality. Are there disputes between editors? Comments about inaccuracies?
![Page 15: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Next, click “article” to get back to the article, and then click the “view history” link
![Page 16: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
This takes you to the article history, which shows you every change that has been made to the article since it was started. Scan it: are there lots of authors or only a few? Is there lots of vandalism or back-and-forth changes?
![Page 17: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
This is a single edit to the article from the revision history: it shows who made the change, when they made it, and what they changed. Click “cur” or “prev” to compare the change to the current or the previous version.
compare
Date of edit
editor
Edit summary: what they changed
![Page 18: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Add it all up
Is the article…• Comprehensive? • Well-written? • Sourced to reputable sources? • Are there any current disputes, ongoing
vandalism or other problems?
![Page 19: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Let’s look at another article, about a different species of toad
![Page 20: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Lots of articles have warning messages at the top, like this one. These messages are left by Wikipedia editors (and can be removed with the problem is fixed), and are a good clue that there may be quality problems.
![Page 21: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
This article has a much shorter introduction, and does not have sources for all facts and statements in the text. It is also missing sections (such as behavior).
![Page 22: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
There are not many references, and two of them are to newspaper articles. For one of these, the link does not work!
![Page 23: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Check out the talk page. Other editors have rated this article “start” class (the usual rating scale is: featured – good article – A class – B class – start – stub, where “featured” is the best and “stub” is just getting started).
Do you agree with this rating? What would you add or change to make the article better?
![Page 24: How to evaluate a Wikipedia article](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022051314/558df4161a28ab96598b4699/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
You can help!
• You can help fix problems you find by becoming a Wikipedia editor: get started at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Learn more about evaluation with this handout: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evaluating_Wikipedia_brochure.pdf
• Learn more about article ratings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Assessment_FAQ
• Learn more about Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help
• Learn more about teaching Wikipedia skills at: http://education.wikimedia.org
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: reuse and adapt it freely! Credit: Phoebe Ayers.