[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Fwd: Re: Wilkipedia troubles



The latest twist?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1531455.htm


Wikipedia head to head with Britannica

Agençe France-Presse


Thursday, 15 December 2005



The free internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia, recently embroiled in controversy over a fake entry, comes close in accuracy to the paid-for Encyclopaedia Britannica in its science articles, a new report shows.


Researchers reporting in today's issue of the journal Nature <http://www.nature.com> gave independent reviewers 42 pairs of articles from both Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org> and Encyclopaedia Britannica <http://www.britannica.com/>.

The articles were on subjects from Archimedes' principle and Dolly the sheep to field-effect transistors and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

The reviewers were not told which article came from where, and were asked to check the entries for accuracy.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia," Nature reports.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Nature says "Britannica's advantage [over Wikipedia] may not be great" when it comes to science, and comments that this result is "surprising" given the eclectic way that Wikipedia's articles are written.

Founded in 2001, Wikipedia is an "open source" of information that asks its users to write, edit and update entries.

In contrast to traditional encyclopaedias, there is no hierarchy of experts through which material is vetted before being accepted for publication. Any user can contribute.

Spoof biography

Wikipedia came under criticism when a spoof biography was posted on its site this year purporting to be that of John Siegenthaler, a retired journalist who was an aide in the 1960s to attorney general Robert Kennedy.

"For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," the joke entry said.

Wikipedia says it has tightened up procedures in an effort to avoid further abuse, although its policy of open sourcing will not be changed.

Nature says that the science reviewers' main criticism of Wikipedia was that its articles were often poorly structured and confused, and gave undue prominence to controversial theories.

Wikipedia has more than two million articles, including over 850,000 in English. It has sites in 200 languages, 10 with more than 50,000 articles.


Susanne Moore wrote:



Susanne Moore 12/8/2005 8:23 AM >>>


My two cents on Wikipedia.

I very much enjoy using it, as I would any encyclopedia. But it does need to 
have some authority citation and if the author of the article wants to remain 
anonymous, there is always the option of a pseudonym.

Sue Moore
Santa Clara, CA




Dora Smith <villandra@austin.rr.com> 12/7/2005 2:52 PM >>>


I saw that news story and do not understand it.

If someone finds something inaccurate on Wikipedia, why don't they fix it instead of complaining about it? Or atleast add a note about it.

Honestly, good stuff comes from Wikipedia's approach! Usually knowledge that can't easily be found elsewhere. And sometimes useful "commentary" like the photo of the new pope the day he was chosen. It was a photo of Palpatine from Star Wars. And it was a perfect match.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
villandra@austin.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Bigelow" <bigelowp@juno.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: Wilkipedia troubles





This story has relevence to DML because a lot of info on dinosaurs is
found in this on0line encyclopedia.  In the long run, the flare-up may be
all for the best, because they may tighten up the rules on how
information is submitted to the site.

<pb>
--

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-12-06-wikipedia-truth_x .htm

"It's online, but is it true?
---------------------------------------------
A high-profile incident last week involving John Siegenthaler is making
some
people rethink their faith in the type of anonymous collaborative
information
gathering that online encyclopedia Wikipedia relies on and is reminding
them
that just because something looks authoritative, doesn't mean it is."











This message scanned for viruses and SPAM by GWGuardian at SCU (MGW1)




-- ***************** Colin McHenry School of Environmental and Life Sciences (Geology) University of Newcastle Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Tel: +61 2 4921 5404 Fax: + 61 2 4921 6925