Dec 15 2005
And from the original report . . .
Nature’s original report, “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head” gives a little more detail than was reported in SMS.
“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.”
“Editors at Britannica would not discuss the findings, but say their own studies of Wikipedia have uncovered numerous flaws. “We have nothing against Wikipedia,” says Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications at the company’s headquarters in Chicago. “But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written. There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor.””
And Robert Eiffert commented today on LM_NET that “Giving “undue prominence to controversial scientific theories”, lets discussion move from, for example, ‘what are short and long term effects of global warming’, or ‘where is the tipping point?’ to ’ does global warming exist?’.”
I guess the jury will be out for quite some time on whether Wikipedia should be considered a reliable source or not. It’s clear that most librarians will scorn its authority and reliability, but that doesn’t mean our students will. Educating them is one of those “the best defense is a good offense” stories where we show the value of the paid subscription databases that are provided to them through their libraries (school, university, and public) and hope that some of it sticks!
