posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:49 PM
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.
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
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:
Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
[edit on 15-12-2005 by fingapointa]
[edit on 18-12-2005 by asala]