Wikipedia vs. Britannica

Thought this was an interesting article that came through my Library School listserv.

Internet encyclopaedias go head to head

The gist of the article is that they sent out articles on various scientific topics from both Wikipedia and Britannica to be peer reviewed by experts in relevant fields. Out of 42 entries:

Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.

It puts into question the value of “experts” for a general reference source, as the findings show that both had considerable errors. Keep in mind this is not saying that Wikipedia is an accurate source, but that print encyclopedias can be just as inaccurate as their online counterparts. Birtannica doesn’t comment on the findings, though their own study show Wikipedia has many errors, and that Wikipedia is cursed by poor writing. On the other hand, the creator of the Wikipedia mentions that he is not so much interested in having experts check the articles so much as having them start the articles in the first place.
Wikipedia Update
At the end of the article, it mentions that Wikipedia will begin to mark some entries as “stable,” meaning the article has reached a certain level of accuracy. From there, people will only be allowed to update a “live” version of that article, which could replace the “stable” article if it shows significant improvement. Makes sense. Kinda like the traditional model of article revision, reworked for the Wiki model.

Tags: Wikipedia, Britannica