Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia/Use of referencing and assessment

Referencing and assessment in a selection of random articles
Conclusion: About 70% of articles are unreferenced A quick survey of 50 random articles was taken, mainly to estimate use of references. Disambiguation pages were ignored. Each article was recorded as assessed/not assessed; references present or absent, and if present poor, average or good. Whether or not referenced articles used in text citations was also recorded.

Of the 50, 34 had no references (almost 70%). Of those 16 that did cite references, 10 were few or poor in quality, 4 were rated average, and only 2 were rated 'well referenced'. Regarding citations, 9 of 16 provided in text citations. Half of the articles were assessed.

The number of assessed articles is encouraging. The quality however, which was not recorded here, was generally low. Summary data on assessment throughout Wikipedia is available here. The data on referencing is the most disappointing, with only a minority providing any references at all, and only half of them using in text citations. Additionally, most referenced articles had only one or two references, often of poor quality.

How the number of assessed articles has changed and is changing is of interest. Similarly, changes in quality and current quality would also be worth researching. Use of references over time would be of interest as well. Changes in individual articles over time in terms of these qualities would provide another perspective.

Methods to get more people assessing articles, and, especially, citing sources is needed. Recently links have been added to the Wikipedia interface for those who are not signed in. Adding links to basic guideline and policy pages for relatively new members, such as how to use footnotes, may also be worth while. Effective communication with new editors, especially from more experienced Wikipedians, is also needed. Editors have to realize that references are not optional but a requirement for almost all articles. WikiProjects and similar groups should also set goals to improve article quality within their scope, and work towards achieving these. If Wikipedia is to be treated as even a semi-reliable source, its articles need to improve in quality. References are a key part of this.

This sample is only small, and not very representative. A random article does not represent the average article people work on or view, and thus the results will be poorer. A method for easily obtaining a sample of representative articles is needed for future research.

Richard001 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)