Comments on: Wikipedia very highly trusted in Japan

By: Almost all Japanese Wikipedia users trust it » 世論 What Japan Thinks - Japanese Opinion Polls, Marketing Data and Japanese Market Research Translated into English

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:43:20 +0000

[…] These figures can be compared with a similar survey in April 2006, when just 46.5% had visited the site, and another 9.7% knew about it but hadn’t visited; the number of visitors has increased by 50% in just eight months […]

By: How has Wikipedia improved? » 世論 What Japan Thinks

How has Wikipedia improved? » 世論 What Japan Thinks — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:50:53 +0000

[…] You may remember a couple of months back I wrote about how the Japanese_name article in Wikipedia was a bit naff. Well, just today I’ve been having a number of hits from that article in Wikipedia, which seems mostly unchanged to me. So, rather than be negative again about it, I think I’ll point out all the bits that seem wrong to me. Common surnames in Japan include Aoki (青木), Sato (佐藤), Kato (加藤), Suzuki (鈴木), Takahashi (高橋) and Suto (須藤). […]

By: One in eight Japanese might trust this blog » 世論 What Japan Thinks

Fri, 05 May 2006 14:28:45 +0000

[…] At the end of April, japan.internet.com, in conjuction with goo Research, published the results of a survey into how much people trust various internet sources. This survey comes hot on the heels of an astonishing (to me) poll that discovered well over 90% of Wikipedia users trusted the contents to some degree. Here they interviewed 1,012 members of the goo Research monitor group via a private internet poll. The demographics were 57.6% female, 3.3% were teenagers, 24.7% were in their twenties, 40.4% were in their thirties, 24.0% in their forties, and 7.6% in their fifties. […]

By: Ken Y-N (Seron)

Ken Y-N (Seron) — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:04:24 +0000

Hi Ben, yes, I could have translated “shinrai” as “reliable” instead of “trust” and produced a perhaps more literal translation, but I felt “trust” had a better impact. “Reliable” perhaps also has connotations of uptime or availablity of content; for example I always rely on Google to find matches for my searches, but I don’t always trust how it chooses what to rank highest.

Sir J, that’s what I’d have said to Nihonjoe too!

And finally: Ben, my first draft of this article actually mentioned you by name as one of the guys doing useful work.

PS: Would you want to hear my critique of the Japanese_Name article?

PPS: I’ve now probably blown my chances of getting my blog cited on other articles in Wikipedia!

By: Ben Bullock

Ben Bullock — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:50:54 +0000

The author does actually mention that he has edited articles on Wikipedia, only to see his edits being removed and the article quality gradually degenerating.

By: Sir J

Sir J — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:45:50 +0000

You could well rewrite an article that you think is poorly written. Many have, and have spent much of their time doing so. The problem is when someone else disagrees and rolls the page back, erasing all of your work.

By: Nihonjoe

Nihonjoe — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:59:14 +0000

You do realize that you can rewrite an article if you think it’s written poorly? Perhaps rather than whine and complain that a collaboratively-written article is poorly written, you would consider writing (or rewriting) it yourself?

By: Ben Bullock

Ben Bullock — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:44:29 +0000

Does “maa maa shinrai dekiru” really translate to “I can trust it quite a bit”? I would translate “maa maa shinrai dekiru” as “It is somewhat reliable” or “It is partly reliable”.