Don’t hesitate to cite Wikipedia as a credible source.
Well, maybe.
Ever since a study was released nearly three years ago comparing the free, user-generated online encyclopedia Wikipedia to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the two have been battling it out by pointing out errors or omissions.
The scientific journal Nature initially compared Wikipedia and Britannica’s coverage of science entries and found Wikipedia nearly as accurate as Encyclopaedia Britannica.
A total of 50 articles were sent out to what Nature called “relevant” field experts for review. Among the 42 entries returned, the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies and Britannica, about three.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia. The study found 162 errors in Wikipedia and 123 for Britannica.
The methodology of the study was disputed, because incomplete articles were sent to reviewers and only excerpted versions of the reviews were published, said Tom Panelas, Encyclopaedia Britannica spokesman, whose company sent out a terse rebuttal to the study.
However, Jim Giles, author of the study, insists Wikipedia is a good place to start when looking for information.
With more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 10 million articles, vandalism rates are extremely low and quickly found, Giles said.
“We have been pleased at the growing recognition of the quality of Wikipedia,” said Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia and president of the encyclopedia’s parent organization, the Wikipedia Foundation of St. Petersburg.
Still, distinctions are made between certain types of entries in Wikipedia’s credibility.
“Some things get really bad — histories, politics, gets controversial that doesn’t get settled easily,” said Bernard Huberman, author of a study, which determined that increased edits make Wikipedia articles “superior.”
Not everyone is buying the study, and some even did their own research to test Wikipedia as a trustworthy source of accurate information.
Alex Halavais, assistant professor in the interactive communication program at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn., inserted 13 errors into various Wikipedia articles, including a false addition to the periodic table and the definition of “longitude.”
All the articles were corrected within three hours, Halavais said.
Britannica isn’t foolproof, either.
Mistakes found in Britannica have been corrected in Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia administrators.
For example, Britannica once listed the birth name of Bill Clinton as “William Jefferson Blythe IV” — but it has been confirmed by the Clinton Library that the correct birth name is “William Jefferson Blythe III.”
Wikipedia founders are still far from satisfied with their online dictionary.
“We don’t think we are [at Britannica quality] yet,” Wales said. “But we are committed at the core to quality as an essential part of our mission.”
Wikipedia corrections
- Robert F. Kennedy’s administrative assistant in the early 1960s, John Seigenthaler Sr., was named a suspect in his assassination of John F. Kennedy. Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia and the content was deleted. He later wrote an op-ed on the experience for USA Today in November 2005.
- Podcasting pioneer Adam Curry edited the entry on podcasting to remove references to competitors’ work, according to computer book author and weblogger Rogers Cadenhead.
- William Connolley, a climate change expert, became engaged in a editing war on an article’s explanation of the greenhouse effect. The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, insisting that Connolley was pushing his own point of view into the article by removing points of view with which he disagreed. The arbitration committee eventually placed Connolley on parole, although this was later revoked and Connolley went on to become a Wikipedia administrator, according to Wikipedia.
