If you've done any research in the last 5 years you've probably been told Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. But just how does it stack up when compared to the revered Encyclopedia Britannica?:
For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.This study is important for three reasons. One, it shows that a free, customer run website, can be incredibly successful. It also shows that information, no matter how well edited, will always have discrepancies. Ideas aren't always facts and truth is very hard to be known, no matter how smart the writers are.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
Finally, it's important in that despite Wikipedia's relative accuracy, it doesn't convince me to allow my students to use Wikipedia as a source. Not because it's slightly less accurate, but because of something I'll call author responsibility. If a paper is written using incorrect information from Britannica, then the editors of Britannica are to blame. If a paper is written using incorrect information from Wikipedia, there is no author who stands to take the blame. Other than the researcher, no one's reputation is on the line. For me, Wikipedia remains my main starting point, but never my ending point.
Excellent. A topic I finally have a degree in. Postmodern historical theorists (the current major theory still, although another should come along soon) argue that Wikipedia has the ultimate author responsibility. That is, according to historical theory, a source that is accountable to the entirety of historical knowledge is the ultimate source -- Although I have only had one professor who believed in this enough to allow it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a postmodern theorist would argue that the committee that conducted your study was biased and flawed in itself because even things such as "factual errors" or "misleading statements" need to be verified, clarified, interpreted or cast out by a majority of historical experts and not a single panel appointed by a select few.
With that said, I would never let students use Wikipedia as a source. Then again, I'm not sure I would let them use the Encyclopedia either.
"With that said, I would never let students use Wikipedia as a source. Then again, I'm not sure I would let them use the Encyclopedia either."
ReplyDeleteWait, why not?