Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4m articles, is almost as accurate on scientific topics as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature said.

The journal compared articles covering a range of sciences just as Wikipedia is under fire over over the accuracy of entries, including a long-running one falsely claiming a prominent journalist was a suspect in the Kennedy assassinations.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said. The average scientific entry in Wikipedia had four errors or omissions, Britannica had three.

[/ QUOTE ]

LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1668705,00.html)

Melch

[man]

this totally makes my day after basing half of a recent paper on wikipedia articles.

[David04]

Yesterday my English teacher told us that Wikipedia was not a credible source, and we couldn't use it for papers. I'm going to show this to her on monday.

[KneeCo]

From Penny Arcade:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051216h.jpg

[Pudge714]

They are pretty good about editing the edits though. On several occasions I have tried adding the Coconut Banger's Ball: It's A Rap! to Robert Goulet discography, however they keep on changing it.
As well funny story about the edits
We edited the entry on the Alexander Technique (Some Acting Technique, it's irrelevant what it is for the story) To say that Rob Schneider was the greatest Alexander Technique actor. Then a kid who had to do a presentation about it said that Rob Schneider was teh greatest Alexander Technique actor. The teached gave him a look as if he just whipped it out, and the rest of the class burst out laughing.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Yesterday my English teacher told us that Wikipedia was not a credible source, and we couldn't use it for papers. I'm going to show this to her on monday.

[/ QUOTE ]

She'll just claim that the source that says that Wikipedia is a credible source is not a credible source. My professors always gave me the same crap about sources. Just write the paper first and look for sources later...

[InchoateHand]

Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyond Enclycopedias, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore?

[ QUOTE ]
Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyong Enclycopedia, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a question of caring

But yeah, Wikipedia is awesome. I recently looked up Scientology after watching the South Park Episode about it it.....

man, I knew they were a little off but I had no idea untill I read that...

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyond Enclycopedias, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am just going to assume monograph is some sort of primary source. All my courses this year (3rd and 2nd year) now use journal articles as our main source. Its really cool to look at the primary sources for textbooks and encyclopedias, and it also makes it clear that a lot of "facts" in psychology and biology rest on shaky ground. The understanding in experimental methods alone makes journal articals really good to use.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The average scientific entry in Wikipedia had four errors or omissions, Britannica had three.

[/ QUOTE ]

LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1668705,00.html)

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

So they have 33% more errors, on average. That's what you call "as accurate" as Britannica?

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The average scientific entry in Wikipedia had four errors or omissions, Britannica had three.

[/ QUOTE ]

LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1668705,00.html)

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

So they have 33% more errors, on average. That's what you call "as accurate" as Britannica?

[/ QUOTE ]

damn I was just going to note this. I need to find a dumber forum to post in.

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyond Enclycopedias, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

for anyone else who doesn't know: monograph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monograph)

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
Yesterday my English teacher told us that Wikipedia was not a credible source, and we couldn't use it for papers. I'm going to show this to her on monday.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically she'll add 2+2 to her black list too

[David04]

I sure hope not, my semester paper discusses the theory behind banging chicks on Myspace. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But seriously though, I'm going to print out the article, not this thread.

[manpower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The average scientific entry in Wikipedia had four errors or omissions, Britannica had three.

[/ QUOTE ]


LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1668705,00.html)

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

So they have 33% more errors, on average. That's what you call "as accurate" as Britannica?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1352207&tid=95&tid=14) reported that the Wikipedia articles were also 2.6 times longer on average than Britannica, making Wiki substantially more accurate on a word for word basis.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
The average scientific entry in Wikipedia had four errors or omissions, Britannica had three.

[/ QUOTE ]

On average, the population density of the known universe per cubic parsec is so close to zero that it might as well be zero. You are merely a statistical anomaly.

For all we know, most Wikipedia articles are as accuate as Britannica, but occasionally, one is so inaccurate that it pushes the average up to 4 from 3. The problem is, you never know which one that is.

If I were doing research, I might start with Wikipedia, but I'd trace the information back to a more reliable source and quote that.

Wikipedia can never be a reliable source because its information can be edited at any moment.

Plus, the science articles don't give a good estimate of the reliability of the encyclopedia. That's because they're mostly fact based articles with detailed content and many reliable references, as compared to other topics which can be contentious, indeterminate, or a target for vandals.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Presumedly professors are hoping you use sources beyong Enclycopedia, online or otherwise? Don't you [censored] kids know how to read monographs anymore? [/quote
It's a question of caring

But yeah, Wikipedia is awesome. I recently looked up Scientology after watching the South Park Episode about it it.....

man, I knew they were a little off but I had no idea untill I read that...

[/ QUOTE ]
I did the exact same thing

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia can never be a reliable source because its information can be edited at any moment.

Plus, the science articles don't give a good estimate of the reliability of the encyclopedia. That's because they're mostly fact based articles with detailed content and many reliable references, as compared to other topics which can be contentious, indeterminate, or a target for vandals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. I think I'd question both of those positions. The whole open source concept is built on the theory that making the subject accessible for correction & improvement by all and sundry results in superior quality than a more centralized approach. By that theory, errors in wikipedia are likely to have a shorter lifespan than those in the Britannica.

And fact-based articles are IMO the best test of accuracy, since it is harder to find any consensus on what an 'error' is when the topic is more subjective.

[[censored]]

we do some people get so emotional about wikipedia is a good source or not? This doesnt really apply to anyone in this thread yet but Ive seen this discussions become amazingly heated in the past. Does it matter either way? It's just another of the countless amount of websites out there.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But yeah, Wikipedia is awesome. I recently looked up Scientology after watching the South Park Episode about it it.....

man, I knew they were a little off but I had no idea untill I read that...

[/ QUOTE ]
I did the exact same thing

[/ QUOTE ]

I had looked up Scientology on wikipedia before the south park show, and while we were watching it was able to give an accurate account of the "what scientologists actually believe" part before I even knew that was going to be shown.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[_2000Flushes]

Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales)

http://www.geocities.com/mikesxyton/pictures/jimmywales.jpg

-2kF