Wikipedia survives research test - BBC

[SoCalDem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm



Wikipedia survives research test

John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability

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. Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page. But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

Open approach

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English. It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.

snip

[BayouBengal07]

1. Oh good.

That thing has saved so many papers for me!

[SoCalDem]

2. Not sure why this got moved, but anyhoo

I have never "used" it, but I like the idea that there are multiple links available, and anyone who wants to research further, can certainly find all kinds of information:)

[Wordie]

9. Even when there's controversy, there's "history" so you can see what it's

all about (and "discussion"). Many other sources don't have that, and there is no way with most sources to even know that there is a controversy or the different aspects of it.

For those not familiar with wiki, here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Here's something of interest from the wiki site, that shows they are taken seriously, and have some good recommendations:

Awards

Wikipedia won two major awards in May 2004<33>: The first was a Golden Nica for Digital Communities, awarded by Prix Ars Electronica; this came with a 10,000 euro grant and an invitation to present at the PAE Cyberarts Festival in Austria later that year. The second was a Judges' Webby award for the "community" category. Wikipedia was also nominated for a "Best Practices" Webby. In September 2004, the Japanese Wikipedia was awarded a Web Creation Award from the Japan Advertisers Association. This award, normally given to individuals for great contributions to the Web in Japanese, was accepted by a long-standing contributor on behalf of the project.

Wikipedia has received plaudits from sources including BBC News, Washington Post, The Economist, Newsweek, Los Angeles Times, Science, The Guardian, Chicago Sun-Times, The Times (London), Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, The Financial Times, Time Magazine, Irish Times, Reader's Digest and The Daily Telegraph. Awards to the Wikipedia project and press clippings are listed by Wikimedia contributors on its website.

[Zynx]

3. Yeah. Same here.

It's not that thorough of a source on many topics, but it certainly suffices for picking up the major points.

[Selatius]

4. Wait until Creationists evolve to the point of altering wiki entries

Then we can go back and see what happened to the science entries.

[Rich Hunt]

12. big problem with that

The dominant style on Wikipedia is either of the academic or editorial type.

The other day I edited an entry because it offended my journalistic sensibilities.

People who use it for disingenuous purposes run the risk of giving themselves
away as they haven't been trained in either academic or journalistic conventions.
Sure there are opportunities for disinfo and vandalism, but on account of 'style'
these people stick out like a sore thumb and they know it.

[phaseolus]

5. Wikipedia's still new, and we're all learning to be savvy users

I sometimes read about mathematics and science on Wikipedia just for fun, and it's amazing how good some of the articles are. On the other hand -- recent political figures, or articles on whomever the right-wing noise machine is attacking these days, they attempt that Neutral-Point-of-View thing, but the articles are usually not as good.

[benny05]

6. Link to the Nature Article

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html (the test of subjects)

I still have my doubts about some of the more general topics, but the site is as good as its writers. The problems for Britanica are that it takes awhile to get the topics up on their website because they are vetted more with experts; it's not free; and perhaps not as many topics either.

To me, 50 entries aren't enough for a sample...it should be far more for this kind of study. Nature will get some criticism from the e-content providers, no doubt. But it's an interesting start, and I hail the founder for the site.

[redherring]

7. My book sucked and so I had to consult wikipedia

It was a numerical methodology course. It's pretty good.

[ozone_man]

8. Wikipedia is the best thing I've seen on the Internets.

And it's liberal, truthful. Easy access to knowledge just took a big step forward.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. With the exception of a few anomalies, I've found it useful.

[blackhorse]

11. What's ironic

... about the attack on Wikipedia is how no one mentions how warped "standard" sources can be.

Check out the 1981 edition of the Columbia History of the World, a collaborative effort of 40 Columbia professors. In a long chapter on World War II (and the entire book), there is no mention of the Holocaust, or crimes against humanity, period. Weeeellll, in my view of history, any time something like 11 million people get whacked by a single movement for no other reason than spurious notions about racial superiority . . . that rates some comment as a profoundly ugly moment of history. I mean, WTF, this is supposed to be a standard work?

Or try reading American history in something like the Encyclopedia Americana and compare it to an analysis of the same period by Howard Zinn. It is obvious the standard works have been whitewashed to be comfortable, reassuring reading for the staunchly conservative upper classes.

But, gee, how dare Wikipedia allow *anyone* free comment on their pages -- the horror of it all!

Cheers

BH