Often that leads to more accurate content, but sometimes it leads to edit wars between people with different axes to grind. And sometimes inaccurate articles remain so simply because no one noticed the inaccuracies or bothered to correct them. Anyone can set up a Wikipedia account simply by coming up with a user name and password. You don’t even have to provide an email address.
In 2005, the journal Nature decided to compare Wikipedia and Britannica, and had subject matter experts do a “peer review” of 50 pairs of articles from both sources. The journal concluded that “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries.” Britannica challenged the findings, but Nature struck to its conclusion. I’m not sure how the two would stack up today, but it was a pretty remarkable finding considering that Wikipedia is free, massive and largely written and edited by volunteers.
Still, there is something to be said about a reference work that’s been around for 244 years that claims to “commission work from people who know their subjects — scholars, world leaders, expert writers — even Nobel laureates” — and then edits the articles and checks the facts. That’s not to say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica can’t be wrong, but at least you know whom to hold accountable.
This article originally appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
Be the first to comment