Home
Previous:
Next:

Wikipedia vs. Britannica

December 15, 2005, 12:34 pm

By Robert Talbert

Related to this post: An investigation by the journal Nature finds that the accuracy of science articles in Wikipedia is comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica:

The magazine had subject-matter experts review 42 pairs of entries from both encyclopedias, without letting the experts know which was which. Wikipedia averaged four mistakes per entry, and Britannica averaged three. Most of the errors were insignificant, the magazine states in an article released today, such as whether someone was the 13th or 14th child in his family. Experts found eight serious errors — four in Wikipedia and four in Britannica — including misinterpretations of important concepts. The article did not spell out the errors in detail.

Four mistakes per entry still seems pretty high to me, but the difference seems to be in the shelf life of those mistakes. A mistake in Wikipedia will remain only until a user catches and corrects it, which could be days; a mistake in the Britannica will stay until the next edition, which could be years.

[Hat tip: Wired Campus Blog]

This entry was posted in Technology. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment (2)
  • http://ticklishears.com David

    Interesting, but I’m still very skeptical of an information source where the information objects have constantly changing and unreliable pedigree.

    Here’s an interesting quote from WiredCampusBlog:

    Other than errors, Nature’s experts found that the Wikipedia entries were often poorly worded and confusing. While the information was generally reliable, the Nature article states, the structure often lacked the nuance that a subject-matter expert could provide, as well as a good editing.

    Clearly, students should never rely on a single source. Even if they use multiple sources, I’d certainly like to see them go to something other than Wikipedia first.

  • http://www.castingoutnines.net Robert

    My point from the first post on Wikipedia was that people should be skeptical of ANY information source, and always view information they get from multiple perspectives before they decide on what it means.

    Actually, I prefer students to go to Wikipedia first and then check it with other sources, preferably those that have professional editors. It gives them the lay of the land quickly on their subject.

The Chronicle Blog Network is sponsored by Chronicle.com. Learn more about us.

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037