news @ nature.com - Internet encyclopaedias go head to head -...
Popularity Report
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 25 people (4 private), first by anonymouse user on 2006-07-30
- Chericem on 2008-03-26 - Tags research , web2.0 , wikipedia , wikis
- Hennis on 2008-03-26 - Tags academic , community , encyclopedia , evaluation , interesting , media , paper , thesis , web2.0 , wiki , wikipedia
- Celt_goldsmiths on 2008-03-06 - Tags articles , opensource , reference , £free_software
- Marido on 2007-10-07 - Tags 070720 , collaboration , research , ridir
- Korinuo on 2007-08-08 - Tags compare , encyclopedias , wiki
Public Sticky notes
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.
Highlighted by nianox
 |
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.
Highlighted by nicks1199
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.
Highlighted by nicks1199
Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.
Highlighted by nicks1199
"People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica," Twidale adds. "Print encyclopaedias are often set up as the gold standards of information quality against which the failings of faster or cheaper resources can be compared. These findings remind us that we have an 18-carat standard, not a 24-carat one."
Highlighted by nicks1199
Nature surveyed more than 1,000 Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of Wikipedia and 17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to update it. The steady trickle of scientists who have contributed to articles describe the experience as rewarding, if occasionally frustrating (see 'Challenges of being a Wikipedian').
Highlighted by nicks1199
Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
Highlighted by topyli
Public Comment
on 2006-07-30 by nianox
on 2006-08-02 by nianox
on 2006-08-05 by nicks1199