5.1.5 Inter-Reviewer Comparisons
There were no differences in the scoring of articles for both Wikipedia articles and in articles from the alternative encyclopaedias, based on whether the articles were reviewed by students or academic experts. These results are presented in Table 5.15.
| Dimensions | Wikipedia | Alternative Encyclopaedia |
| Accuracy | U=437.50, p=0.97 | U=469.00, p=0.67 |
| References | U=441.00, p=0.99 | U=527.00, p=0.13 |
| Style/ Readability | U=484.50, p=0.52 | U=483.00, p=0.53 |
| Overall Judgment | U=370.00, p=0.84 | U=378.50, p=0.35 |
| Overall Quality Score | U=443.50, p=0.32 | U=493.50, p=0.41 |
*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.
Table 5.15 Comparisons in ratings of articles (Wikipedia and alternative encyclopaedias) based on whether scored by student or academic experts.
The results of the inter-reviewer comparisons categorised according to language are presented in table 5.16 below. Spanish academics scored articles significantly higher for style/ readability and overall judgment as compared to students. Overall quality scores were significantly higher among students native in English, compared to academics native in English, although no significant differences were detected on any of the other four dimensions. A similar finding was found for overall quality scores among Arabic reviewers.
The results of the inter-reviewer comparisons categorised according to academic disciplines are presented in table 5.17 below. There were no significant differences between the ratings of articles by students and academic experts in the Humanities, Social Sciences, Mathematics, Physics and Life Sciences, and the Medical Sciences.
36
