Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Wikipedia as accurate as Brittanica

  1. #1
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    14,277
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked
    837 times in 473 posts

    Wikipedia as accurate as Brittanica

    Wikipedia has been criticised recently for the accuracy of its articles, but the journal Nature has done a side by side comparison of scientific entires in both the Wikipedia and Britannica, finding them both to be of about the same accuracy. CNN reports:
    Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

    Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found -- including misinterpretations of important concepts -- four came from each source, the journal reported.
    [CNN]
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

  2. #2
    ayembee
    Guest
    so, according to the article, they actually pointed out wikipedia had roughly a third more errors than britannica? now that's actually rather impressive given that it's a free resource, but in the cold hard light of day that means that for the limited amount of wikipedia they examined (50 scientific articles only) wikipedia is 30% worse! not quite sure i'd say that's "as good as"...

    (and this doesn't even include the other point the Nature article makes which is "peer reviewers also regarded the Wikipedia entries as poorly written and structured">)

    so... pretty respectable, but not quite time to hand back that encyclopedia!
    Last edited by ayembee; 16-12-2005 at 02:23 PM.

  3. #3
    Comfortably Numb directhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    17,074
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    1,027 times in 678 posts
    • directhex's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus ROG Strix B550-I Gaming
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5900x
      • Memory:
      • 64GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Seagate Firecuda 520
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra
      • PSU:
      • EVGA SuperNOVA 850W G3
      • Case:
      • NZXT H210i
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 20.04, Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 34GN850
      • Internet:
      • FIOS
    the wikipedia articles were twice as long and detailed though, so they had a lower error-per-word ratio

  4. #4
    ayembee
    Guest
    actually the Nature article says it chose entries partly on the grounds that they were the same length so that it was a fairer comparison -- though if they were twice as long that could be put down to being "poorly written and structured", heh...

    (i actually like wikipedia because it has such a crazy range of entries on all sorts of peculiar topics; i just draw the line when it comes to classifying it as an authority)

  5. #5
    Synergy leverager
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    /dev/dsk/c1d0s7
    Posts
    1,051
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked
    31 times in 27 posts
    • Mutley's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Abit IP-35 Pro
      • CPU:
      • Intel QX9650 (OC'd to 3.8Ghz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill DDR2-1066 8500CL5D
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840EVO 250GB SSD & Samsung HD501LJ 500GB SATA
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX 660
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Infiniti 650W
      • Case:
      • Antec P-182
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • NEC 20WGX2
      • Internet:
      • 60MB Cable (Virgin)

  6. #6
    Comfortably Numb directhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    17,074
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    1,027 times in 678 posts
    • directhex's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus ROG Strix B550-I Gaming
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5900x
      • Memory:
      • 64GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Seagate Firecuda 520
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra
      • PSU:
      • EVGA SuperNOVA 850W G3
      • Case:
      • NZXT H210i
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 20.04, Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 34GN850
      • Internet:
      • FIOS
    i wouldn't rely on the register's view, they have a violently anti-wikipedia anti-open-source agenda

  7. #7
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,164
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    2,152 times in 1,408 posts
    anti-everything, so it is fair.

    They do however show quite nicely how errors per word isn't really whats wanted.

    Heck factually convayed in x words isn't even whats wanted. (as some people prefer a more drawn out explanation, with easyer to understand words)
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  8. #8
    Synergy leverager
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    /dev/dsk/c1d0s7
    Posts
    1,051
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked
    31 times in 27 posts
    • Mutley's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Abit IP-35 Pro
      • CPU:
      • Intel QX9650 (OC'd to 3.8Ghz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill DDR2-1066 8500CL5D
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840EVO 250GB SSD & Samsung HD501LJ 500GB SATA
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX 660
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Infiniti 650W
      • Case:
      • Antec P-182
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • NEC 20WGX2
      • Internet:
      • 60MB Cable (Virgin)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheAnimus
    anti-everything, so it is fair.

    They do however show quite nicely how errors per word isn't really whats wanted.
    Which was really my point. Its easy to see Nature doing an article and thinking "ooh look so WP is OK after all". Its a matter of interpretation. For my money, WP is not OK by a long margin. Its not supposed to be Brittanica, but has been pointed out, for any (self) appointed knowledge repository, it can only be as good as the worst entry, and there are plenty of them.
    The very fact that they have no peer-review system undermines the cause, and that a number of subject-matter experts have volunteered their services and been turned down.
    I like the ideals of WP, and it does have good entries. Even its creator acknowledges the issues, and they are trying to address some of them. I think they are for example looking at how to make use of the peer review system.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Wikipedia tightens up
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-01-2006, 05:44 PM
  2. Wikipedia subjected to BBC viral marketing?
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15-08-2005, 06:59 PM
  3. Wikipedia editorial rules to be tightened
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-08-2005, 10:48 PM
  4. My subconscious clock is more accurate than my conscious one...
    By Paul Adams in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 15-06-2004, 06:13 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19-01-2004, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •