p2p news / p2pnet: When it comes to science entries Wikipedia, in trouble with USA Today’s John Seigenthaler over a post, is almost as accurate as the famous Encyclopedia Britannica.

So says Nature.

An expert-led investigation carried out by Nature – the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica’s coverage of science – suggests such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule, says the journal.

“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,” it states, going on:

“Considering how Wikipedia articles are written, that result might seem surprising. A solar physicist could, for example, work on the entry on the Sun, but would have the same status as a contributor without an academic background. Disputes about content are usually resolved by discussion among users.”

But “Our goal is to get to Britannica quality, or better” Nature has Jimmy Wales, Wiki co-founder president of the encyclopaedia’s parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation stating,

Editors at Britannica would not discuss the findings, but say their own studies of Wikipedia have uncovered numerous flaws, says the story, adding:

But Michael Twidale, an information scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says that Wikipedia’s strongest suit is the speed at which it can updated, a factor not considered by Nature’s reviewers

Read:-
in trouble – Wiki hoax post author apologises, December 15, 2005
Nature – Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, December 16, 2005

This entry was posted on Friday, December 16th, 2005 at 10:13 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 4714 times