NationStates Jolt Archive


Wikipedia as accurate as an encyclopedia?

The Eliki
16-12-2005, 04:39
Fresh from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html):
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

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.

"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded St. Petersburg, Florida-based Wikipedia in 2001.

Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.

The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.

Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group also is working on ways to make its review process easier to use by people who have less familiarity with computers and the Internet.

Encyclopedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the findings because they haven't seen the data. But spokesman Tom Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're conducted correctly, are valuable "because they tell us things you wouldn't know otherwise."

While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not covered in Britannica.

Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered, Panelas said.

Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone -- amateur or professional, expert or novice -- to submit and edit entries.

Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


I remember the legitimacy of using Wikipedia as an accurate source was discussed recently. Does this change anyone's opinion?

I still don't think it's legit to use it as a research reference. Sure, it may be accurate, but I'd much rather use a source from respected academics.
Eutrusca
16-12-2005, 04:41
I remember the legitimacy of using Wikipedia as an accurate source was discussed recently. Does this change anyone's opinion?
No.
Sheni
16-12-2005, 04:43
I always trusted wikipedia as much/more as Britanica.
At least on extreme ironing anyway.
DrunkenDove
16-12-2005, 04:43
1) Repost
2) No-one should trust a single reference for anything
3) This guy should have fixed the entry. That's why the edit function is there.
Crazy Dancing Bears
16-12-2005, 04:44
fact is, many people from respected universities post to wikipedia on topics of their expertise, but wikipedia is revolutionary in that it allows articles to be challenged on accuracy by others, and even changed instantly. while people often do post nonsense to wikipedia, the moderators hear about it and respond swiftly.
Demented Hamsters
16-12-2005, 04:48
Link to the Nature article, if anyone's interested:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
Caer Lupinus
16-12-2005, 04:52
Maybe not as a cited source but it's a good starting point for research. Especially on subjects that you have no clue about at all.
Katganistan
16-12-2005, 04:53
fact is, many people from respected universities post to wikipedia on topics of their expertise, but wikipedia is revolutionary in that it allows articles to be challenged on accuracy by others, and even changed instantly. while people often do post nonsense to wikipedia, the moderators hear about it and respond swiftly.

Four months hardly strikes me as "swift", and the fact is that there are people out there who vandalize it repeatedly because they somehow think it amusing.

If an encyclopedia is inaccurate, there is someone to hold accountable for that.
If Joe3478678 alters an article to read that Albert Einstein was a transexual and was only a front for the real genius of Adolph Eichmann, who is responsible for that?

I do not accept wikipedia as a valid source for my students' papers for precisely this reason, and because rather than actually check other sources, they tend to use the one source and list the sources Wiki lists... without ever finding out if they are bogus or not.

In other words, they believe this is their one-stop source no matter what they are told, and their work suffers accordingly.
Mag-Mog-Mag-Me
16-12-2005, 04:55
The recent discussion I payed slight attention to was mostly focusing on demonstrating the various articles in he line of one for each of the Little Rascals are not serious enough for a "proper" encyclopedia. Which is plain bull which doesn't make sense at all.

If wikipedia does have incomplete overage of some topics, or incomplete articles, the information in it is VERY rarely seriously wrong. And if some respected party finds a serious error in wikipedia, there's two things they can do:

A) Fix it. (Try doing that for Brittanica.)

or

B) Start an utterly pointless general discussion, read mudslinging frenzy.

One of these actually helps. You choose.
Dostanuot Loj
16-12-2005, 04:59
Wikipedia is still crap in my mind.
I do use it to look up random, useless tidbits of things, or as a starting point to research in that it can give me ideas of what to look up books on (Was handy in my eassy on Giaus Marius because I could write down things to go look up actual sources on easier then I could with Plutarch).
But as an accurate system of information, I think it's nowhere near that.
If I want peer-reviewed articles of fact I read published academic journals, if I want a quick bit of information for no purpose then to amuse myself, then I use Wiki.
Soviet Haaregrad
16-12-2005, 05:16
Wikipedia, like an exncyclopedia, is a good start, but nothing more. No encyclopedia is the only resource you need for a reseach paper, but it good enough for internet forum debates.
IDF
16-12-2005, 05:27
Wikipedia is actually accurate the vast majority of the time. It is far from the best source and should only be used as an intro into a subject to direct you where to look furthere, but I will say I'm impressed with the way they've reworked their history pages. The wiki history project has yielded good results to date and is fairly accurate.
Daistallia 2104
16-12-2005, 06:09
Wikipedia, like an encyclopedia, is a good start, but nothing more. No encyclopedia is the only resource you need for a reseach paper, but it good enough for internet forum debates.

That should read "no encyclopedia should be used as a source for a reseach paper, but the Wikipedia is a passable source for internet forum debates", otherwise you are correct.

Katganistan, I once taught an English writing class at the English specailty school I first taught at here. Wikipedia would have been a step up from the prefered sources of the students, which included such items as a Lonely Planet guide book (the only listed source for a 20 page paper on US culture).
Lacadaemon
16-12-2005, 06:14
Katganistan, I once taught an English writing class at the English specailty school I first taught at here. Wikipedia would have been a step up from the prefered sources of the students, which included such items as a Lonely Planet guide book (the only listed source for a 20 page paper on US culture).

When I was in highschool, I was constantly told how much more studious the japanese were than the English (actually, we were told that pretty much everyone was more studious except the australians, but I digress). Looking at the above that seems not to be the case.

So is it true, or are the Japanese just like everyone else and goof off whenever possible?
The Cat-Tribe
16-12-2005, 06:32
No.

Gee. Why would you let facts interfere with your opinion? I mean they are just facts.
The Squeaky Rat
16-12-2005, 09:41
Four months hardly strikes me as "swift", and the fact is that there are people out there who vandalize it repeatedly because they somehow think it amusing.

It is A LOT swifter than the correction of other encyclopedia or your average textbook... thugh those of course are not as vulnerable to vandalism.
Kanabia
16-12-2005, 10:15
(actually, we were told that pretty much everyone was more studious except the australians, but I digress)

>.>
Daistallia 2104
16-12-2005, 16:36
When I was in highschool, I was constantly told how much more studious the japanese were than the English (actually, we were told that pretty much everyone was more studious except the australians, but I digress). Looking at the above that seems not to be the case.

So is it true, or are the Japanese just like everyone else and goof off whenever possible?

Yes and no. They have a very rigorous exam system aimed at entrance to the proper schools. However, it's largely rote. Critical thinking and academic discipline are almost completely ignored. That same class (all HS grads) had no clue that plagurism was in any way wrong. Even when confronted with my personal copies of books from which they had plagurised, I had students who's attitudes were "so what?" Several papers were submitted without any sources at all. 20 pages on subjects such as "Japan has the best food in the world" with no references to sources. And the student graduated. :mad:
Safalra
16-12-2005, 16:51
Fresh from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html)
*sigh* Why did no-one notice when I posted about this yesterday?
DrunkenDove
16-12-2005, 16:54
Gee. Why would you let facts interfere with your opinion? I mean they are just facts.

Yes, let's base our opinion on a single entry out of eight and a half hundred thousand entries. That's a reasonable thing to do.
DrunkenDove
16-12-2005, 16:55
*sigh* Why did no-one notice when I posted about this yesterday?

Because it was posted the day before that by Celtland?
Wolfish
16-12-2005, 17:01
In my opinion - anyone conducting serious research, including college/university level work, should only use an encyclopedia as a starting point - and then get serious sources - books written by experts, primary sources and the like...so really - the accuracy of a reference book should never stand alone.

W.
Safalra
16-12-2005, 17:05
Because it was posted the day before that by Celtland?
*hangs head in shame*
New Pindorama
16-12-2005, 17:16
I always thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia. I'm confused now...
DrunkenDove
16-12-2005, 17:25
I always thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia. I'm confused now...

It is. However, because it can be edited by anyone, people suggest that it is less accurate than a printed encyclopedia.
Eutrusca
16-12-2005, 17:32
Gee. Why would you let facts interfere with your opinion? I mean they are just facts.
Oh. You mean like the fact that Wikipedia articles can be altered by any idiot with access to a keyboard? That sort of fact? :p
Kroblexskij
16-12-2005, 17:32
i use wiki for many sources. and find it generally helpful.
Eutrusca
16-12-2005, 17:34
It is. However, because it can be edited by anyone, people suggest that it is less accurate than a printed encyclopedia.
It isn't. An encyclopedia ( a REAL encyclopedia! ) can be relied on as a source of verfied, scholarly, well-researched, accurate information which isn't subject to being altered by any idiot with an ax to grind. Wikipedia cannot.
Eutrusca
16-12-2005, 17:35
i use wiki for many sources. and find it generally helpful.
Operant word: "generally." If even one percent of the information in an encyclopedia is wrong, it casts doubt on the veracity of the remaining 99%.
DrunkenDove
16-12-2005, 17:42
Operant word: "generally." If even one percent of the information in an encyclopedia is wrong, it casts doubt on the veracity of the remaining 99%.

Did you read the Nature article posted previously? It stated that regular encyclopedia contain a myriad of mistakes anyway.
The Squeaky Rat
16-12-2005, 17:53
It isn't. An encyclopedia ( a REAL encyclopedia! ) can be relied on as a source of verfied, scholarly, well-researched, accurate information which isn't subject to being altered by any idiot with an ax to grind. Wikipedia cannot.

And yet their accuracy seems to be similar.
Flarioc
16-12-2005, 18:03
Although any idiot can change an article in Wikipedia, any idiot can also fix an article in Wikipedia. If you were to write an article suggesting that Albert Einstien was a transexual, etc. (as a previous poster suggested), it would be reverted in seconds, because only an idiot would believe this. People who repeatedly vandilize the site generally have their IPs blocked. Of course, this won't help all the time, since they can simply use another computer or change their IP, but I have generally found the information to be factual and more useful than other areas. It is my first place to look for information, however it is only logical to look at other sites as well. It also helps to have an idea as to what you're talking about, so that obvious falacies can be detected. If there are obvious errors or questionable facts, then an additional search on other sources can prove them right or wrong quite quickly. I have never found a serious error in what I've read in Wikipedia before, but I've not gone into some of the more obscure articles on the site. It is a good compilation of information, so long as you have a bit of intelligence and reasoning ability.
Eutrusca
16-12-2005, 18:06
It is a good compilation of information, so long as you have a bit of intelligence and reasoning ability.
So all of the folks who use it as a sole source have no intelligence? Hmmm.
DrunkenDove
16-12-2005, 18:07
It is my first place to look for information, however it is only logical to look at other sites as well.

Yep. No single source is perfect. Multiple sources are the only way to be sure that you're getting the right information.

So all of the folks who use it as a sole source have no intelligence? Hmmm.

Indeed.
Eutrusca
16-12-2005, 18:09
Indeed.
LOL Well, I certainly can't argue with that! :D
Lacadaemon
16-12-2005, 18:37
>.>

*shrugs* Dude, what can I tell you. This is only the teacher's ipse dixit mind you, I'm sure it doesn't reflect national policy.

Anyway, it had the upshot of making us think that australian students must be cool.
Lacadaemon
16-12-2005, 18:38
Yes and no. They have a very rigorous exam system aimed at entrance to the proper schools. However, it's largely rote. Critical thinking and academic discipline are almost completely ignored. That same class (all HS grads) had no clue that plagurism was in any way wrong. Even when confronted with my personal copies of books from which they had plagurised, I had students who's attitudes were "so what?" Several papers were submitted without any sources at all. 20 pages on subjects such as "Japan has the best food in the world" with no references to sources. And the student graduated. :mad:

Thanks for the info.
Lacadaemon
16-12-2005, 18:47
It isn't. An encyclopedia ( a REAL encyclopedia! ) can be relied on as a source of verfied, scholarly, well-researched, accurate information which isn't subject to being altered by any idiot with an ax to grind. Wikipedia cannot.

You could say the same thing about encylcopedias, just the process isn't as transparent, and happens more slowly.

Shit, they are full of errors, and I don't for a second believe ther claim that every article is fact checked by a well versed scholar in that subject for a second.

I would imagine they are more likely to suffer PC diesease than wiki too, simply because they are a final edit for sale, unlike wiki.