Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica
Raul654 writes "Nature magazine recently conducted a head-to-head competition between Wikipedia and Britannica, having experts compare 42 science-related articles. The result was that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3. However, a pair of endevouring Wikipedians dug a little deeper and discovered that the Wikipedia articles in the sample were, on average, 2.6 times longer than Britannica's - meaning Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica's." Interesting, considering some past claims. Story available on the BBC as well.
As the article states, the writing style in Wikipedia can be poor. Low diction, poor grammar and bad structure contribute to the chaos.
Most research I do on Wikipedia does not depend on good writing, but accurate information, especially on pop culture items or obscure "geek" subjects. Wikipedia does well in this. I have seen defaced articles "heal" with ten minutes of the incident.
As a contributor to Wikipedia, I am glad it is gaining widespread notoriety and validation.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
So, since they found these inaccuracies in the article, I would like to know whether they edited them and fixed them as they went, or just played the part of the silent observer. To me, this is the great thing about Wikipedia; if you know the subject and you find an inaccuracy, be bold and fix it already.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Wikipedia has less errors, you say? We'll be fixing that shortly...
-- The Britanica Team
Modded as "Funny," but this is actually very insightful. The problem (and advantage) of Wikipedia is its volatility. Anyone can go change something to be incorrect (whether maliciously or not), at any time.
This study, unfortunately, tells us almost nothing. The average number of errors per entry is really not a valuable statistic. How bad were the errors? How long are the errors there? Wikipedia, because of its volatility, really cannot be instanced in the way this study has done. It would be more revealing to do a study of the past X months/years/whatever, to determine how many errors there were, what kind of errors there were, and how long these errors were around.
Of course, then the Encyclopedia Britannica wouldn't be studied as *it* should. Because it is *not* such a volatile resource. In reality, the two resources are not as similar as people think.
And regarding the average number of errors per length of text: this statistic is downright worthless. If someone states something incorrect in one sentence, how is it any better to state the same incorrect thing in 10 sentences?
And will you then ask them to visit the site
every week to remove the changes made by
people who aren't experts in the field?
That's why I gave up on it -- it's like
trying to build a sandcastle too close to the
water's edge. I'd rather use my time to
create something that won't be destroyed
after a month or two.
Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
The Wikipedia article is written flabbily, by a collection of authors, some experts, some not, some good writers, some terrible ones.
Yes, and terrible contributions gets edited over time as the article stabilizes.
The error per word rate in Britannica may be higher, but the error per fact rate is probably much more favourable to Britannica.
So you have no idea or basis for this claim?
Easy example - compare the writing in a mainstream newspaper to a well-written one with tight editorial policies, like the Financial Times or the Economist. Your average Sidney Morning Herald, Guardian or San Francisco Chroncile article is probably longer, but it says less.
I don't know about you, but from the articles I've seen on Wikipedia, they've been quite rich in information.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The nice thing about britannica is that though it is imperfect, I have seen few cases of pervasive campaigns of misinformation. To avaoid this failure mode, an editor should require a writier to be broad and reference a variety of sources. Also, when we are taught to use the encyclopedia, we are taught not to use a a primary source, but merely as a starting point. For instance, few say that the encyclopedia says this or that.
OTOH, the failure mode of wikipedia is potentially catastophic. The winners are often those who have the power to to push thier persepctive of a particular topic. This is not always the case, but since it is a probably failure mode, and since there does not appear to be an effective defense, it makes the wikipedia a much less reliable source of information, on average, than the britannica.
In the end I think the summary is another example of sloppy science. It is not so bad, as it indicates that the wiki can be more or less trusted on the types of topics nature posted, although the wiki did have more erros, though perhaps not statistically significant. The wikipedia process absolutely has to deal with the failure modes, and should encourage authors to point to peer reviewed sources to justify their claims of science and history, and a variety of sources for current events. After all, if everything comes from the weekly world news, we cannot expect much overall accuracy.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If you're doing any kind of information/knowledge search, you never rely on a single source anyway. Unless you're a journalist.
Even though articles may be longer and that changes the ratio of errors per article Britannica, IMHO, is a much more trustworthy source of information. With Wikipedia you have no idea how factual a posters information may be. Sure there are alot of people editing the information but you might hit the article at a point in time in which the information is incorrect. An example is the fake posting made about the person having been investigated in the death of Kennedy. You really don't know who is posting these articles or making changes to them as they are anonymous. At least with Britannica you are assured that the information is gathered by people who get paid to do this as a job and the information is validated by fact checkers. Wikipedia is "cool" but still a novelty to me.
I agree, they can be rich in information, no argument at all. I frequently use it as a resource.
My quibble is with the submitter's argument that the error per word ratio in Wikipedia is lower than in Britannica. I say this is meaningless: we're interested in the error per statement ratio.
We can safely assume the "experts" had moral concerns. Therefore they have corrected all the wikipedia errors leaving ZERO per article. Britanica on the other hand still has 3 per article.
Although, a difference of 1 error per article in lengthy science articles is not substantial enough to pass the margin of error of the experts themselves.
From the results page at http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/ 438900a_m1.html
"All entries were chosen to be approximately the same length in both encyclopaedias."
Are you all idiots? I guess I don't really need to ask that question.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
I compared the information about Barbara McClintock, the Nobel Prize winner, in the Encyclopedia Britannica with that found elsewhere on the Internet.
The Encyclopedia Britannica article was not inaccurate. It was, however, extremely misleading. It was worse than worthless, since it gave the idea that Barbara McClintock's achievements were much less valuable and extensive than they actually are. After many years and much progress in Biology, her work is still valuable. A copy of her papers requires 80 feet of shelf space!
The Wikipedia article is far, far better than the one in the full Encyclopedia Britannica.
No space-limited, profit-oriented publication can compare to internet research, for most topics. I don't think that Encyclopedia Britannica has anything against Barbara McClintock, but the company must decide how much paper they want to buy.
The only case in which error/length ratio is meaningful is when you are only considering grammar or typographical mistakes: badly formed phrases, missing or additional or misplaced letters, dates with inverted numbers, and so on and so forth.
Note how this post is rather verbose. I could come up with a much longer or a much shorter one, with the same content, and I would still be equally wrong (or right).
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Did those experts having found those errors correct them? If not, why not? What Wikipedia needs is more expert contributors. I can add a little to articles I'm researching, but what is most helpful is when someone who knows more than most about a subject can work on those articles.
This isn't just a problem with encyclopaedias, of course. Most PhD dissertations are riddled with errors, some very obvious, even though the author may have spent years on the document. (I mean errors that result from trying to convey information, not intentionally included wrong information -- missing words that change the meaning of a sentence to the opposite of what the author intended, dates the contradict other dates on the same page, etc.) The world's an imperfect place.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
When I was in junior high, people used to slip pages from porn into the encyclopedia volumes in the school library. An annoyance to be sure, but until our society gains the sense to lock teenagers up in solitary confinement, we will still encounter stupid pranks from time to time.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
They should compare only articles of a certain age in wikipedia with the brittanica articles, and myabe wikipedia should warn if an article is either new or been hardly accessed.
It really seems that Wikipedia is an good encyclopedia of things that actually matter to most people.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Many times when I read a news story and I find it interesting I will check wikipedia to see if I can add some new info from the article to the entry there.
Ony once had the new bleeding edge research not already been nicely integrated into the current article and sourced with a link to the academic paper or article.
You see, I had none of that. No chemistry, no calc, no trig. Instead, I got random insignifigant battles, simple science things that were wrong (blood cells break open on the sharp edges of broken vessels to clot), no physics, no astronomy. I did have some random teachers that were sense-making, and actually educational -- I've read Shakespeare, and some classics that stuck. Lots of teachers stressing memorization, which I found useless. I tell my SO that I would've been fine coming out of 6th grade, and going off to college. I wasn't some special smarty wizz kid, but a normal interested human. I found my education at 8 different schools a bit lacking, and left to get my GED when I was legally allowed.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.