FW: Wikipedia vs Britannica
sometimes it is good to be a member of more than one discussion list ! best Niels W.L. member of Air-l, Jesse-list and ph.d. design list -----Original Message----- From: Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum on behalf of Sloan, Bernie Sent: Wed 12/14/2005 10:24 PM To: JESSE@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Wikipedia vs Britannica The following interesting item was forwarded to me by a colleague (Sharon Stoerger): Giles, Jim. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature. Published online: 14 December 2005; | doi:10.1038/438900a http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html "Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds." Bernie Sloan Senior Information Systems Consultant Consortium of Academic & Research Libraries in Illinois 616 E. Green Street, Suite 213 Champaign, IL 61820-5752 Phone: (217) 333-4895 Fax: (217) 265-0454 E-mail: bernies@uillinois.edu
Niels Windfeld Lund wrote:
sometimes it is good to be a member of more than one discussion list !
I'm not sure, if that remark was meant in a sarcastic way? Yes, I also received this link in multiple groups multiple times, but that's at least signifies that there is some interest in the topic. Personally, I have become very interested, because to me Wikipedia is a nuisance, as its various reincarnations clutter the search engines and because too many people actually do use it as a credible source (and it's ususually not even properly cited). Anyways, I would like to post my standard reply to this link: The comparision is problematic in two ways: 1) Only natural science entries were tested. This seems to me the least problematic area of Wikipedia. Paradigmatic sciences, as are the natural sciences, prduces "facts"; that is, there rarely is any doubt about the appropriateness of the currently dominant theories. Regardless of ideology and political positions, chances are, that most people agree on the adequacy of Einstein's special theory of relativity and that it is a uniquely defined theory, even if most people may have only a faint idea what this theory is about. Such neat consensus does not exist in the huimanities and social sciences, so Wikipedia entries from these domains are often much less reliable. 2) The sampling process of the Nature article is so flawed, it renders the test results meaningless. The article says little about how the entries were chosen by the editorial team of Nature, but what it does say is in my view unacceptable practice: "All entries were chosen to be approximately the same length in both encyclopaedias." Now, surely, the length of an indicator is one valid goodness criterion. Encyclopedia articles should be concise, but at the same time cover all significant aspects of a phenomenon. By limiting the review to Wikipedia articles that approximate EB articles in length, the reviewers very much cherry picked the Wikipedia entries, as we know that EB articles are on the average probably quite good. From my own experience, I found Wikipedia articles in my field of expertise (sociology) usually quite sloppy. Not really bad, but usually worse than a Google search for "$concept site:edu" and often tilted towards one or another political standpoint or one or another sociological theory. Thus: My skepticism of Wikipedia is not affected by the findings of the nature article. Thomas -- thomas koenig http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Anyways, I would like to post my standard reply to this link: The comparision is problematic in two ways:
1) Only natural science entries were tested. This seems to me the least problematic area of Wikipedia.
Perhaps entries on computer technology are even less problematic, as well as articles on mathematics. But there is no question that we would not fare as well as this in social sciences.
Such neat consensus does not exist in the huimanities and social sciences, so Wikipedia entries from these domains are often much less reliable.
I'm sure that this is a factor, but of course this is a factor which introduces real difficulties for any methodology for knowledge generation. If the facts themselves are murky and subject to interpretation, then of course it will be harder to reach a consensus on any one presentation as broadly correct. But I suspect that our relative strength in science as opposed to humanities and social sciences stems more from a systemic bias introduced by the sorts of people who are mostly doing the editing in Wikipedia these days... we come from the Internet, we come from the free software world, and we reflect that in ways that are not always good.
2) The sampling process of the Nature article is so flawed, it renders the test results meaningless. The article says little about how the entries were chosen by the editorial team of Nature, but what it does say is in my view unacceptable practice:
"All entries were chosen to be approximately the same length in both encyclopaedias."
Now, surely, the length of an indicator is one valid goodness criterion. Encyclopedia articles should be concise, but at the same time cover all significant aspects of a phenomenon. By limiting the review to Wikipedia articles that approximate EB articles in length, the reviewers very much cherry picked the Wikipedia entries, as we know that EB articles are on the average probably quite good.
Yes. This doesn't make the study invalid, but it means it answers a different question from "which is broadly better, Wikipedia or Britannica"
Thus: My skepticism of Wikipedia is not affected by the findings of the nature article.
Nor should it be. :-) --Jimbo
Jimbo Wales has joined in the Aoir discussion! (he's the creator of Wikepaedia) Hobnobbing eh? Nuse xxx -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: 15 December 2005 21:37 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] FW: Wikipedia vs Britannica Thomas Koenig wrote:
Anyways, I would like to post my standard reply to this link: The comparision is problematic in two ways:
1) Only natural science entries were tested. This seems to me the least problematic area of Wikipedia.
Perhaps entries on computer technology are even less problematic, as well as articles on mathematics. But there is no question that we would not fare as well as this in social sciences.
Such neat consensus does not exist in the huimanities and social sciences, so Wikipedia entries from these domains are often much less reliable.
I'm sure that this is a factor, but of course this is a factor which introduces real difficulties for any methodology for knowledge generation. If the facts themselves are murky and subject to interpretation, then of course it will be harder to reach a consensus on any one presentation as broadly correct. But I suspect that our relative strength in science as opposed to humanities and social sciences stems more from a systemic bias introduced by the sorts of people who are mostly doing the editing in Wikipedia these days... we come from the Internet, we come from the free software world, and we reflect that in ways that are not always good.
2) The sampling process of the Nature article is so flawed, it renders the test results meaningless. The article says little about how the entries were chosen by the editorial team of Nature, but what it does say is in my view unacceptable practice:
"All entries were chosen to be approximately the same length in both encyclopaedias."
Now, surely, the length of an indicator is one valid goodness criterion. Encyclopedia articles should be concise, but at the same time cover all significant aspects of a phenomenon. By limiting the review to Wikipedia articles that approximate EB articles in length, the reviewers very much cherry picked the Wikipedia entries, as we know that EB articles are on the average probably quite good.
Yes. This doesn't make the study invalid, but it means it answers a different question from "which is broadly better, Wikipedia or Britannica"
Thus: My skepticism of Wikipedia is not affected by the findings of the nature article.
Nor should it be. :-) --Jimbo _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (4)
-
Jimmy Wales -
Niels Windfeld Lund -
Sue Cranmer -
Thomas Koenig