Paper detail

Measuring Verifiability in Online Information

The verifiability of online information is important, but difficult to assess systematically. We examine verifiability in the case of Wikipedia, one of the world's largest and most consulted online information sources. We extend prior work about quality of Wikipedia articles, knowledge production, and sources to consider the quality of Wikipedia references. We propose a multidimensional measure of verifiability that takes into account technical accuracy and practical accessibility of sources. We calculate article verifiability scores for a sample of 5,000 articles and 295,800 citations, and compare differently weighted models to illustrate effects of emphasizing particular elements of verifiability over others. We find that, while the quality of references in the overall sample is reasonably high, verifiability varies significantly by article, particularly when emphasizing the use of standard digital identifiers and taking into account the practical availability of referenced sources. We discuss the implications of these findings for measuring verifiability in online information more generally.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.