Guests
Welcome!
Sign Up
Log On

Search


 

Information Research Weblog






Subject Wikipedia vs. Britannica
Posted 12/15/2005; 12:36 PM by Tom Wilson
Last Modified 12/15/2005; 12:36 PM by Tom Wilson
In Response To (#Top of Thread.)
Label None. Read 1020
<<PREVIOUS NEXT>> TOP THREAD EDIT REPLY
.

My attention was drawn by the LITA-L discussion list to an interesting article in Nature on a test of Britannica and Wikipedia. Nature sent out a total of 50 articles from the two encyclopedias for peer review and concluded that there was not much to choose between the two.

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.

As a result of the recent fuss over misleading articles in Wikipedia, some changes are being made. Specifically, 'stable' articles will be identified and will not be editable - only a separate version will be editable and that will replace the currently 'stable' version when it is deemed appropriate.

.
<<PREVIOUS NEXT>> TOP THREAD EDIT REPLY
ENCLOSURES

None.
REPLIES

None.
 




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



This site managed with Conversant, © Copyright 2008 Macrobyte Resources

Channels


Digital Libraries

Education

Electronic publishing

Freedom of information

Information Management

Intellectual Property

Internet

Knowledge management

Personal

Records management

Resources

Searching

Software

Technology

Weblogs

Wireless

Words