Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica.

[eviljeff]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

LINK

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

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Slashdot 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.