DEATHMATCH: Britannica vs. Wikipedia
The journal Nature have done a study of error frequency in Wikipedia and Britannica, and just published their results:
Turns out Wikipedia is only slightly less accurate than Britannica, at least on matters within Nature’s area of expertise.
<span id="more-9"></span> <p>Especially interesting following the USA Today furor over a spurious entry about a retired journalist. I think this is a full list of the articles, editorials, and letters they ran on the subject:</p>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-12-05-wiki-rules_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-12-06-wikipedia-truth_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-11-wikipedia-apology_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-08-letters-wikipedia_x.htm
Also interesting as we’ve been debating the merits of converting one of our sites at work to a Wikipedia-style maintenance model, and some of the staff have brought up concerns of accuracy, defacing, etc. I find it at least passingly interesting that Wikipedia have begun requiring you to create an account before editing. I’m surprised they hadn’t done so before actually.
About this entry
You’re currently reading “DEATHMATCH: Britannica vs. Wikipedia,” an entry on Kevin's random thoughts
- 12.14.05 / 10am