A quantitative study for online encyclopedias: comparison of Wikipedia and Knol
|A quantitative study for online encyclopedias: comparison of Wikipedia and Knol|
|Authors:||Kuang-Hua Chen, Hsin-Yi Wu|
|Citation:||Journal of Library and Information Science Research 7 (1): 32-38. 2012 December|
|Web:||Bing Google Yahoo! — Google PDF|
|Article:||BASE Google Scholar PubMed|
|Restricted:||DTU Digital Library|
|Extract:||Talairach coordinates from linked PDF: CSV-formated wiki-formated|
See also the related paper A quantitative comparison on online encyclopedias-a case study of Wikipedia and Knol. That paper is somewhat more detailed.
They compared page views, number of words, readability, number of citations, number of references and types of references.
- Readability: http://www.read-able.com/
- Times cited: Yahoo Site Explorer (https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/)
- Rating references:
- Scoring for page views per year and numbers of references: "directly based on the information in online encyclopedias and in each article."
- Page view much large for Wikipedia
- Number of citations much larger for Wikipedia
- Number of citation larger for Wikipedia
- Readability about the same.
- "[...] these evaluations were all carried out for Wikipedia only and no comparative studies were reported in the literature." This is not correct, e.g., the cited study of Giles was a comparative study, — as are a number of other studies.
- How well does http://read-able.com perform on Wikipedia pages?