The Curious Case of Increasing Misspelling Rates On Wikipedia - Webmaster rambling and mental notes- JournalHome.com

An unnamed reader writes "The crowd-sourced nature of Wikipedia might imply that its content should be more 'correct' than other sources. As the saying goes, the more eyes the better. One thorough

roget's ii: the new thesaurusmain entry:element
part of speech:noun
definition:an discretely studious portion of a whole.
article student who was curious about this conducted rudimentary text mining on a sampling of the Wikipedia corpus to perceive how misspelling rates on Wikipedia change through time. The results appear to testify an increasing rate of misspellings through time. The author proposes that this isogenous 1995 by houghton mifflin harcourt issue company. published by houghton mifflin harcourt issue company. all rights reserved.view results from: definiendum | llc.view results from: dictionary | thesaurus | encyclopedia | all reference | the web
share this: | encyclopedia | all character | the web
share this: is the result of Wikipedia contributors using more complex language, which the test is unable to cope with. How do the results of this test compare to your own observations on the detail accuracy of massively crowd-sourced applications?"