If you are a passionate internet user (which probably you are, if you are reading blogs), then you must be aware of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopaedia, created and edited by its users (meaning anyone who has an internet connected computer) whereas Britannica is the copyright protected encyclopaedia written and edited by some selected stalwarts.Comparing these two, Wikipedia could be aptly labeled as democratic (of the people, for the people, by the people) and Britannica is definitely capitalistic (by selected few, for the privileged few). So, now keeping this in mind, which one is supposed to be error-free? Here are the interesting results of a study done by Nature (taken from this article):
In the midst of all this controversy, Nature published the results of an analysis of a broad range of entries from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica which shows a different picture. Even so, the results were impressive. After looking at 42 articles, according to Nature, “only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia”.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
One problem is that this Wikipedia is vulnerable to is vandalism. (Remember the saying, Too many chefs spoil the dish?) Some noted instances are reported in this article. But one thing is for sure, that Wikipedia has revolutionized the way of sharing the information on internet. “Wiki” (Hawaiian for "unpaid labor") is now the term used for anything open-source and edited by anyone.
One thing I observed is that Wikipedia do has an updated entry for Britannica, but Britannica Online returns “No results found for Wikipedia”. Anyone from the Britannica’s editorial board reading this?
f you haven't tried Wiki yet for digging some piece of information, check it out.
Disclaimer: This post reflects solely the views of the author and has no relation paid or forced with Wikipedia.
In the midst of all this controversy, Nature published the results of an analysis of a broad range of entries from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica which shows a different picture. Even so, the results were impressive. After looking at 42 articles, according to Nature, “only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia”.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
One problem is that this Wikipedia is vulnerable to is vandalism. (Remember the saying, Too many chefs spoil the dish?) Some noted instances are reported in this article. But one thing is for sure, that Wikipedia has revolutionized the way of sharing the information on internet. “Wiki” (Hawaiian for "unpaid labor") is now the term used for anything open-source and edited by anyone.
One thing I observed is that Wikipedia do has an updated entry for Britannica, but Britannica Online returns “No results found for Wikipedia”. Anyone from the Britannica’s editorial board reading this?
f you haven't tried Wiki yet for digging some piece of information, check it out.
Disclaimer: This post reflects solely the views of the author and has no relation paid or forced with Wikipedia.
3 comments:
wikipedia is so comprehensive...i cant imagine doing any b-school project without wikipedia....
i LOVE wikipedia, kanishk. every time my granddaughter asks one of her zillion questions and i answer, "i don't know, let's find out," you can find us using wikipedia.
and hiya!
wikipedia has answers to anything and everything.
Post a Comment