Posted on 12/18/2005 1:51:01 PM PST by Termite_Commander
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
Over the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia, the free, open-access encyclopedia, has taken a great deal of flak in the press for problems related to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability.
In particular, Wikipedia has taken hits for its inclusion, for four months, of an anonymously written article linking former journalist John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. At the same time, the blogosphere was buzzing for several days about podcasting pioneer Adam Curry's being accused of anonymously deleting references to others' seminal work on the technology.
In response to situations like these and others in its history, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has always maintained that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate.
Still, many critics have tried to downplay its role as a source of valid information and have often pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.
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.
"I was very pleased, just to see that (the study) was reasonably favorable," Wales told CNET News.com. "I think it provides, for us, a great counterpoint to the press coverage we've gotten recently, because it puts the focus on the broader quality and not just one article."
He also acknowledged that the error rate for each encyclopedia was not insignificant, and added that he thinks such numbers demonstrate that broad review of encyclopedia articles is needed.
He also said that the results belie the notion that Britannica is infallible.
"I have very great respect for Britannica," Wales said. But "I think there is a general view among a lot of people that it has no errors, like, 'I read it in Britannica, it must be true.' It's good that people see that there are a lot of errors everywhere."
To Britannica officials, however, the Nature results showed that Wikipedia still has a way to go.
"The (Nature) article is saying that Wikipedia has a third more errors" than Britannica, said Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica.
But Cauz and editor in chief Dale Hoiberg also said they were concerned that Nature had not specified the problems that it had found in Britannica.
"We've asked them a number of questions about the process they used," Hoiberg said. "They said in (their article) that the inaccuracies included errors, omissions and misleading statements. But there's no indication of how many of each. So we're very eager to look at that and explore it because we take it very seriously."
If everyone who sees an error then avoids the site, then it will become increasingly filled with errors until it's rendered useless. It's a self-fulfilling type of thing.
At any rate, Wikipedia will only function properly if everyone contributes.
Doesn't say much for Britannica.
I regularly correct errors or otherwise modify entries on Wikipedia, and I'm extremely attentive to make sure that my edits are accurate and neutral. Speaking of which, I've been meaning for about three weeks to edit some corrections into the article on Origen (the early Christian scholar) but I've just been way too busy to do the research I need to do beforehand.
bump
Wikipedia is useful for finding quick, constantly updated information on a much broader array of topics than any encyclopedia. Try searching for Samuel Alito, Fred Phelps, or famous scientologists, for example. While no one would ever cite Wikipedia in an academic paper, no one would cite Britanica either. Tertiary sources have no place in academia (past middle school). However the sources cited often are useful for followups.
"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."
That isn't exactly "as accurate."
2.9 mistakes per 'science' article. Lets see the number when you talk about politics or history. I think you will see a very different story about wikipedia.
In a perfect universe that would be an accurate statement. In the one we inhabit, it is a silly statement.
Just note the nature of the beast. If Encyclopedia Britannica, whose (commercial) goal is authoritative accuracy, has as many errors as this article suggests, imagine, if you can, when another source naively purports to be as objective, yet allows every expert or petty propagandist in the world to contribute, how accurate can it be? ever?
The best it can ever hope for is an ever-changing set of "facts" that is being constantly "corrected" by one side, and then the other.
In the natural sciences, with exceptions, and in mathematics, it's diffucult to imagine the ignorant taking over, although the global warming debate will make one pause.
In all other areas, history, philosophy, human nature, sociology, economics and human behavior, I would no more accept the contents of Wikipedia than bubble gum cards. But that's just me.
This was a few months ago and they are still there pretty much intact with a couple of people adding additional information.
My other son is busy putting up articles on obscure Christian rock bands.
It's actually turning into one of my favorite sites. I don't use it so much for hard research but to get quick, up-to-the-minute facts on mostly irrelevant topics. For example, the staid Encyclopedia Brittanica would never deign to produce an article on Led Zeppelin. But Wikipedia has tons of good info on this seminal rock band including a complete discography.
Then it is doomed to failure.
"Excluded the rambling garbage"?
Gave the "web site a fighting chance"?
LOL!
Not a very "blind" test when the choice of facts is pre-selected!
Unfortunately, the clueless will continue to quote wikepedia as accurate as Britannica in all areas.
There's a positive way to look at it. =P
Speaking of errors, isn't Siegenthaler spelled the way I spelled it, and isn't he still on one of the alphabet networks?
Depends on the subject matter. Wiki seems to have a hell of a problem with biographical entries being hijacked by folks who have it in for the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.