Wikipedia "about as accurate as Encyclopaedia Britannica"...

[shamrock_uk]

... at least when it comes to science topics according to the British journal Nature. Seeing as so many use it, thought I'd post this in GD - it's quite impressive!

Link

Wikipedia survives research test The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy. Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page. But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler. Open approach Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English. It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry. quote: We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder

It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.

"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.


Writing style

Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.

The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.

"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.

"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."

Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.

Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.

Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...gy/4530930.stm

Published: 2005/12/15 10:42:34 GMT

© BBC MMV[/QUOTE]

[Lucern]

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature. "But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

I like Wiki. It reminds that the 'net was intended primarily to share info once upon a time.

This caught my attention though. 4 articles from each source, and 8 serious errors? 8 Articles total, and 285 factual errors/omissions/misleading statements? Granted it's interesting that Wiki generally kept up with Britannica, but neither, especially the encyclopedia, are as authoritative as many people think, at least for technical matters.

It goes to show that second opinions are always a good thing.

[robertthebard]

Not too bad, all things considered...

[Larry_OHF]

I was allowed to quote from it at the university last semester in my final project.

[Sir Degrader]

Really? I'm not allowed to quote from it, and I'm in highschool.

[Timber Loftis]

I think wikkipedia is great. It is by any measure better than an encyclopedia. For one, it's free. For another, it represents the collective shared wisdom of folks, and I just kinda like that as opposed to a team of professionals writing encyclopedias. Third, it is constantly updated, whereas a set of encyclopedias has a limited lifespan.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Really? I'm not allowed to quote from it, and I'm in highschool.

I sure did, at UNC Greensboro. My professor is the head of department. I did a report on Ramon Sender...a Spanish writer during the early 1900s.

I hear that Wiki is thinking of doing a real published version. I have no idea where I heard this...maybe on the radio.

[Timber Loftis]

I have followed uniform rules for citing internet URLs in formal published legal writing since 1997.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: I hear that Wiki is thinking of doing a real published version. I have no idea where I heard this...maybe on the radio.

Was it this?.

[Memnoch]

Wikipedia is a great resource considering that it's free. Like TL said it's the closest thing to a collective shared knowledge set that we have.

But like anything that you can get on the internet you need to use it with a grain of salt - because its accuracy will depend on:

a ) the intentions of the person who adds the entry
b ) the information gathering ability of the person who adds the entry
c ) the ability of subsequent readers (editors) to pick up any mistakes and be bothered enough to make changes

Here's an interesting snippet about information and the internet.

But back to the Chase/Seigenthaler saga. According to CNN, as a joke, a Nashville man named Brian Chase created a biography entry for John Seigenthaler Sr. that described the USA Today founder as having lived in the former Soviet Union for more than a decade and, prior to that, being linked to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Aside from the fact that Chase, who lost his job as a delivery-service manager because of the hoax, didn't know that people actually use Wikipedia for serious research, the ease with which he created and entered a fictitious biography and the way it simply became part of the Wikipedia fabric is frightening. . Is the Chase incident an anomaly, or is all of Wikipedia suspect? My gut says the online encyclopedia is still a valuable tool, but it's only slightly less suspect that the millions of information blogs on the Web. They're filled with user-generated posts and comments, and a blog is only as relevant and, to some extent, as true as the number of trackbacks it has. So a highly linked blog is perceived as relevant, and although those who link to it may not see it as "true, verifiable information," Google will play accomplice to help the blog move up the ladder as a relevant result for the given topic. Someone searching on "Iraq War," for example, could find a blog discussion on the topic as a first-page result (Wikipedia's entry is on page 2). People who are less savvy about the Web and blogs will likely visit the blog, read it, and take the information at face value. Someone's opinion then becomes "truth." . Wikipedia, at least, is not designed to host opinion. It is supposed to be fact-based and accurate. If you decide to create an entry or edit one, you'll see this admonition: . "Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. By editing here, you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." . Still, anything built by committee has little chance of 100 percent accuracy. I spent hours crawling through Wikipedia this week looking for glaring errors. I couldn't find any. . What the Chase/Seigenthaler fiasco does prove is that people are often ignorant of the consequences of their own actions, and many learned people still have a lot to learn about the Internet. It does not, however, damn Wikipedia. Even so, the popular online research tool will need to take a good hard look at its own vetting procedures to 1) reassure the Web community and 2) prepare for the yahoos hoping to pull their own Chase stunt. . From PC Magazine

[ 12-20-2005, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]