by the following criteria: The first four of these have been the subjects of various studies of the project, while the presence of bias is strongly disputed on both sides, and the prevalence and quality of citations can be tested within Wikipedia. [ 24 ] In addition, the scientiﬁc research in the area of computational mechanism for trust and reputation in virtual societies was oriented to increase the reliability and performance of electronic communities such as Wikipedia with more quantitative methods and temporal factors. [ 25 ] In contrast with all the previous intrinsic metrics, several "market-oriented" extrinsic measures demonstrate that large audiences trust Wikipedia in one way or another. For instance, "50 percent of [US] physicians report that they've consulted ... [Wikipedia] for information on health conditions", according to a report from IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. [ 26 ] Assessments Comparative studies On October 24, 2005, British newspaper The Guardian published a story titled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which a panel of experts was asked to review seven entries related to their fields, giving each article reviewed a number designation out of ten points. [ 27 ] Scores ranged from 0 to 8, but most received marks between 5 and 8. The most common criticisms were: Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions) Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions) Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention) The most common praises were: