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 .
A Boost For Wikipedia's Credibility, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 15-12-2005 @ 09:49 PM by fingapointa
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]
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]
Pages: ^^TOP^^
Wild Elephants gather inexplicably, mourn death of “Elephant Whisperer”
Posted 12 days ago with 150 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 150 member flags
Montreal Martial Law Bill 78 Passes - Backlash was Immediate; Massive Civil Disobedience
Posted 5 days ago with 118 member flags
Posted 5 days ago with 118 member flags
Remember The Sunday School Teacher Murderd Shot 6 Times By A Police Officer?
Posted 2 days ago with 55 member flags
Posted 2 days ago with 55 member flags
Insider tells why Anonymous ‘might well be the most powerful organization on Earth’
Posted 11 days ago with 52 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 52 member flags
Girl, 16, Kills Herself After Researching 2012 Doomsday Threads...
Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.044 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.044 seconds
