Wikipedia poll

Poll finds 46% of people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"

Despite widespread recent news coverage of such mistakes as erroneously reporting Sinbad's death, people seem more likely than not to consider Wikipedia reliable, based on a recent poll conducted in the United States.

This information was part of a report produced by U.S. polling firm Rasmussen Reports. It addressed questions of reliability, how many people actually edit, and how favorably they view the project. The report was based on a survey of 1,000 adults conducted on 24 March and 25 March, with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points.

On the question of reliability, 46 percent found Wikipedia "at least somewhat reliable", with 16% disagreeing and the rest not sure. One-quarter of people who have visited the site said they had found something they knew was wrong, but only 9% indicated they had actually edited Wikipedia. The last figure corresponds roughly to the rule of thumb for participatory internet communities that about one in ten people will contribute instead of simply observing, and of those contributors about one in ten will be highly active. This type of "participation inequality" was studied with respect to Wikipedia last year by Jakob Nielsen and called the 90-9-1 Rule.

The percentage of people who had a favorable opinion of Wikipedia was the same as the percentage who found it reliable, 46 percent. Breaking things down by demographics, men under age 40 were especially well-disposed to the project, with a 68% favorable rating. Meanwhile, 20 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Wikipedia. Commenting on this, the report noted that based on some other recent Rasmussen surveys, "Wikipedia is not as well received as companies like Walmart and major auto manufacturers." (Interestingly, debates over the reception given Wal-Mart in its Wikipedia article have themselves received some attention in the past.)

While it is true that all four companies mentioned (Wal-Mart and the "Big Three" U.S. automakers, GM, Ford, and Chrysler) had higher favorable ratings than Wikipedia, all of them also had higher unfavorable ratings. In terms of favorable/unfavorable ratios, some did better than Wikipedia and some did worse. The only generalization this clearly supports is that each of these companies is better-known than Wikipedia, for good or ill. And in fact, it appears more than a third of people still don't know enough about Wikipedia to have an opinion about it.

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
==9% of who have edited?==

This Signpost article says 9% of people who have visited Wikipedia have edited. This seems to disagree with the linked article by Rasmussen, even though the Signpost figure seems far more realistic. Rasmussen says, "While Wikipedia is open to anyone, just 9% of Americans have posted or corrected information on the site." Just 9% of Americans? That's 30 million people; is this a typo? What's going on here? If it is a typo, then how do we know it's a typo?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this; if anyone sees this and it isn't then please point me in the right direction. Thanks! --Allen 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prose written by Rasmussen is of mixed quality, but it's worth mentioning that the survey is limited to adults. Other reports have indicated that about 1/4 of US internet users visit Wikipedia in any given month, and I'd venture that easily a majority have visited Wikipedia at some time, ever. So 30 million is certainly high, and there's not really enough information to convert the percentage to a total population, but I don't think the phrase was intended to be interpreted literally with mathematical extrapolation. --Michael Snow 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm still confused, though. The way I see it, you've got American adults, and then a subset of those are internet users, and then a subset of those are people who have ever visited Wikipedia. So even if a majority of internet users have visited WP at some time, that still might not be a majority of American adults. Do you know of a link to the raw survey data? Maybe that would clear things up. --Allen 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to comment on only 9%? That seems very high to me...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any statistics exist regarding the number of IP addresses who have edited? I swear I've seen this somewhere, but now I can't find it... --- RockMFR 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that that would be terribly helpful...I know I've edited from a variety of IP addresses when I forgot to log in. --Tim4christ17 talk 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

46% is hardly a majority

Accordingly, I've changed the wording. Blast 08.04.07 2248 (UTC)


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0