Wikipedia matches Britannica for accuracy

[Guest guest]

You are right: always do the diligent work on your own before

accepting Wikipedia. But I think one of the problems is that

Wikipedia is too new and too uneven. The system for writing it has

got to improve. But there is this article.

Wikipedia matches Britannica for accuracy

By the Times of London Online and AP

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia that relies on volunteers to

write nearly four million articles, is about as accurate in covering

scientific topics as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the journal Nature

has found.

The claim, based on a side-by-side, comparative peer review of

articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as

Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some entries.

Two weeks ago Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of

USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months

had incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of

president F. Kennedy and his brother .

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature

said. Experts reviewing 42 articles found that the average scientific

entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while

Britannica had three. Of eight " serious errors " the reviewers found –

including misinterpretations of important concepts – four came from

each source.

" We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus

people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty

good, " said Jimmy Wales, who founded Wikipedia in 2001.

Mr Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with

strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology.

Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more

collective expertise in such areas, he said. Mr Wales acknowledged

that the site tends to lag when it comes to the arts, such as the

winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year.

Next month, Wikipedia plans to start testing a new mechanism for

reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group is also working on

ways to make its review process easier to use for people who have

less familiarity with computers and the internet.

Encyclopaedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the

findings, saying that they haven't seen the data. But spokesman Tom

Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're conducted correctly,

are valuable " because they tell us things you wouldn't know

otherwise. " He said Britannica researchers would review the Nature

study and correct any errors discovered.

While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's

quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the

speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as " extreme ironing. " The

sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not

covered in Britannica.

Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of

experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its

content for free and allows anyone to submit and edit entries.

Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the

37th most visited website on the internet, according to the research

service a.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20411-1933231,00.html