Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/32

 {| border=1 cellpadding=5
 * Test Statistic
 * P value
 * Accuracy
 * U = 2645.00**
 * 0.004
 * References
 * U = 3285.00**
 * <0.001
 * Style/ Readability
 * U = 1533.00**
 * 0.01
 * Overall Judgment
 * U = 2638.50**
 * 0.001
 * Overall Quality Score
 * U = 2148.50
 * 0.38
 * }
 * U = 2638.50**
 * 0.001
 * Overall Quality Score
 * U = 2148.50
 * 0.38
 * }
 * }

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

5.1.2 Comparison within each Language Group between Wikipedia Entries and Articles from the Alternative Encyclopaedias

The findings of the comparisons of reviewers' ratings of articles from Wikipedia and from the alternative encyclopaedias for English are presented in Table 5.7. Similar comparisons for Spanish and Arabic are presented in Tables 5.8 and 5.9 respectively.

In English, Wikipedia scored significantly higher on accuracy, references and overall judgment, as compared to the alternative encyclopaedia (Encyclopaedia Britannica) (see Tables 5.3 and 5.7). There were no differences between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on style and overall quality score.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

In Spanish, Wikipedia scored significantly higher on accuracy, references and overall judgment as compared to the alternative encyclopaedia (Enciclonet) (see Tables 5.3 and 5.8). There were no differences between Wikipedia and Enciclonet on style and overall quality score.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

32