Wikipedia survives research test

[LSdemocrat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

"The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy"

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. LOL - Excellent

No doubt the posters who think you absolutely need professional writers and editors will provide at least some praise for this rather startling event? Right?

[bryant69]

2. Yes because there's no event so trivial

we can't start a fight over it.

I don't think editors are an absolute necessity; but I do think some bloggers (including probably myself) suffer from not having them.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tx_dem41]

4. Ummm....I think you missed a comma and a capitalization somewhere..

in your post.

Your editor,
tx_dem41

:)

[iconoclastNYC]

5. A lot of the people who post are professionals.

And experts in the topic they are writing. That's what the naysayers conveniently ignore.

I think that Wikipedia is feared because it enables people who are not in the elite publishing industry to influence written history and highlight inconvenient facts.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. But are they functioning as professionals for wikipedia?

It doesn't matter if they are professionals. Obviously, the point is to draw from a diverse knowledge base, including trained professionals.

[skooooo]

9. Yes, BUT people have to cite their information...

The best articles indicate a level of research that includes using more traditional sources of information. So, while Wiki is somewhat radical, I don't think it's quite the break from tradition that you insinuate.

[catabryna]

3. Wikipedia is a great tool!

Since I haven't had a World Book at my fingertips since I was a kid, I use Wikipedia all the time. Fantastic resource ~~ and, I'm glad to know of its accuracy!

[rmgustaf]

6. I Heart Wikipedia!

One of the best things on the 'net.

[MissMarple]

7. Just remember to cross reference.

:)

[iconoclastNYC]

10. Wikipedia is MORE ACCURATE than Britannica

A pair of endevouring Wikipedians dug a little deeper and discovered that the Wikipedia articles in the sample were, on average, 2.6 times longer than Britannica's - meaning Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Nature_follow-up:__How_do_the_article_sizes_compare.3F