Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wikipedia - A general discussion of its validity
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 2 of 40 (271493)
12-21-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
12-21-2005 4:04 PM


errors
in the they might be giants peanut gallery me writes:
quote:
Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a comparison study has found.
The British journal Nature ran blind tests asking experts to compare scientific entries from both publications.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia.
Reviewers found 162 factual errors in the Wikipedia documents, compared to 123 in the Britannica documents.
Nature also said that its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused. Wikipedia is a free resource edited by 13,000 contributors.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica declined to comment on the findings.
http://www.vnunet.com/...647/wikipedia-squares-encyclopaedia
i guess the moral of the story is that encyclopedias aren't all that accurate in book form either -- the GOOD thing about wikipedia is that it's almost evolutionary in nature. if something is wrong and someone knows better it gets changed much faster than the book form would. this of course can also work against it, but hopefully not very often.
162 errors, and four serious ones. it doesn't say how many articles they checked... edit: nevermind, found the nature article. 42 articles contained 162 errors. close to four errors an article, on average.
quote:
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head | Nature
i find wikipedia good for looking up general knowledge stuff. stuff i already know but may not recall clearly. but for questionable and debatable materials, it's far from the best source
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-21-2005 04:18 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-21-2005 4:04 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 40 (271505)
12-21-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminNWR
12-21-2005 4:29 PM


Re: What's all the fuss about?
If we disallow wiki
whoa whoa whoa. who said anything about disallowing wikipedia?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminNWR, posted 12-21-2005 4:29 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-21-2005 4:51 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 8 by AdminNWR, posted 12-21-2005 4:52 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 40 (271589)
12-21-2005 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by pink sasquatch
12-21-2005 4:51 PM


luuuuuuucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!
brennakimi asked for a Wikipedia ban.
sigh. ok. i'll smack her around a little.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-21-2005 4:51 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-22-2005 10:45 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 40 (271791)
12-22-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by macaroniandcheese
12-22-2005 10:45 AM


Re: ricky, lick my balls.
sorry, i looked it up in wikipedia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-22-2005 10:45 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 29 of 40 (443608)
12-26-2007 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 10:58 AM


Re: The Wikipedia anti-careationism and anti-conservativism bias
buz, just because two sources exist, and they disagree, that doesn't mean that both are equally wacky. same basic "teach the controversy" fallacy.
as stephen colbert put it, "reality is liberally biased!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 10:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024