It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wikipedia relies on user generated content, that has helped make it the largest online encyclopedia in existence. If you want a perfectly reliable encyclopedia than try a real encyclopedia (aka a book).
What I want to know is what is the best Wikipedia alternative that has the most content.
For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
"An expert-led investigation carried out by Nature--the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science," the journal wrote, "suggests that such high-profile examples (like the Seigenthaler and Curry situations) are the exception rather than the rule."
And to Wales, while Britannica came out looking a little bit more accurate than Wikipedia, the Nature study was validation of his service's fundamental structure.
Read more: news.cnet.com...
Any encyclopedia which is very selective about who can add and edit information will always have much less content than more open encyclopedias. Even a real encyclopedia is not 100% correct, as shown by another poster, the difference in errors isn't actually very high. The problem is, a good encyclopedia is supposed to basically explain essentially everything, so you need an expert for each an every subject if you want 100% facts...but even then the professionals aren't always right. You need collaboration.
That's why I'm trying to determine the best Wikipedia alternative that has lots of content and is more strict on facts than Wikipedia. There has to be among all those resources a site that has both.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
If you find a mistake in what Wikipedia says, then why not fix it, and add to the quality of the free encyclopedia which you claim is flawed.