Cnn.com points out an interesting article in the current edition of Nature on the accuracy of Wikipedia. The study found that there was not a great difference in the accuracy of science articles between the two sources.
As of today, the article is available free on the Nature website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mmm. I don't know. I like Wikipedia and all, but the press/word of mouth that this study has gotten has been a tad misleading. Particularly the claim that Wikipedia is "as accurate" as Britannica, a claim that the Nature article does not appear to make. "Almost as accurate" is really what they are saying. Some folks might giggle at my drawing that fine a distinction, to which I say, horseshoes and hand grenades.
All that aside, I wonder how conclusive this study really is. I haven't seen the methodology they used, but the articles selected, from "a broad range of scientific disciplines" were probably of a higher quality to begin with than some of the less trafficked topics on Wikipedia. If you think about it for a second, it's really a study contrasting the accuracy of the two encyclopedia's science articles, more than anything else.
All this blah blah blah brings me to my point. I like Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia. But, I also know how to think critically about Wikipedia (or any other source for that matter). This is a skill that some library patrons lack, and we have a responsibility to teach it to them. I would never cite Wikipedia as a source for anything remotely formal. I don't think that professors should be accepting it as a source. The ones I know don't. It's not reached that level of consistency or quality yet. But when I want to know the population of Chile or who Mr. Teatime is, and nothing serious depends upon the answer, I'll admit it, I go to Wikipedia.
Post a Comment