It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Boost For Wikipedia's Credibility

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
In the wake of recent controversy surrounding the accuracy of entries in Wikipedia, the science journal Nature has conducted an investigation which concludes that entries for science are "no less accurate" than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
 



www.nature.com
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

. . . In the study, entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So wikipedia isn't that bad after all. I think the study makes a good point on how even reputable publications like Britannica can get it wrong too. Also, the fact that a magazine like Nature comes out with (provisional) support for it, has to be a good thing.

I guess it goes to show that no one source of information is going to be 100% accurate 100% of the time.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of Wikipedia. I wouldn't write a thesis based solely on info from it, but I'll still use it to find a quick summary/further reading etc.

Related News Links:
www.npr.org
arstechnica.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.atsnn.com...

[edit on 15-12-2005 by fingapointa]

[edit on 18-12-2005 by asala]




posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I've never had a problem with Wikipedia, because I've always taken it with a grain of salt. No encyclopedia is definitive, not even Encyclopaedia Britannica .



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   


I've never had a problem with Wikipedia, because I've always taken it with a grain of salt. No encyclopedia is definitive, not even Encyclopaedia Britannica .


Exactly. There's a concept in journalism called triangulating data, where basically information must usually be verified form three independant sources. Don't know how much it happens these days. . .



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
good article , BUT what ` nature ` does not adress is that IMHO the likipedia enteries on topics such as creationism , holacaust revision etc tend to be the mine feild areas with rabid distortions from folks with an axe to grind

that said - i vote yes



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join