Fresh from Nature: a peer reveiw comparison of Wikipedia’s science coverage against Encyclopaedia Britannica:
One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource. But it is also controversial: if anyone can edit entries, how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?
Several recent cases have highlighted the potential problems. One article was revealed as falsely suggesting that a former assistant to US Senator Robert Kennedy may have been involved in his assassination. And podcasting pioneer Adam Curry has been accused of editing the entry on podcasting to remove references to competitors’ work. Curry says he merely thought he was making the entry more accurate.
However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica’s coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule. (link added)
Go read the whole story.
nature, journal, peer review, quality, wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, encyclopedia, Britannica, head to head, compare, comparison, social software, wisdom of crowds, thewisdom of the crowds
Posted December 14, 2005 by Casey Bisson
Categories: Libraries & Networked Information. Tags: Britannica, compare, comparison, Encyclopaedia Britannica, encyclopedia, head to head, journal, nature, peer review, quality, social software, thewisdom of the crowds, wikipedia, wisdom of crowds.
1 Comment(s)
Comments RSS
TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
User contributed tags for this post:
nude kid (207) - nude foto (189) - nude kids foto (159) - kid nude (122) - nude kidz (100) - kids nude foto (100) - foto nude (92) - kids nude (80) - kidz nude (78) - nude fotos (67) - nude kids (60) - kidssexs (52) - foto nude kids (52) - nude kids fotos (51) - kids foto nude (35) - nude children (30) - kids sexs (29) - nude children fotos (27) - nature sexs (27) - kids-nudes (26) - nude kids photo (25) - kids fotos (24) - porno foto com (22) - kids nude fotos (22) - nude kids com (22) - wikipedia (21) - children nude foto (21) - nude wikipedia (19) - kids porno foto (18) - nudes kids (18) - kid nude foto (18) - maissonbisson (16) - nude kids photos (16) - fotos de kids nude (16) - Nude children FOTO (16) - all (15) - nude kid foto (14) - nude kids blog (13) - fotos kids nude (13) - nature porno (13) - FOTO NUDE CHILDREN (13) - wikipedia is bad (13) - porno nature (12) - porno foto kids (11) - kid nudes (10) - foto kids nude (10) - nude foto kids (9) - kids nudi (9) - fotos nude kids (9) - kid sexs (9) - nude kids.com (8) - nude kids foto com (8) - Why wikipedia is bad (8) - fotos nude (8) - porno 1900 (8) - porno de (8) - nude kids in nature (7) - children nude (7) - nude kid photo (7) - gulf sexphoto (7) - nude kids gallery (7) - nature sex com (7) - kids fotos nude (7) - porno kid (6) - nude foto com (6) - children foto nude (6) - www.nature sex.com (6) - wikipedia nude (6) - nude arab kids com (6) - Nude foto nature (6) - nude children in nature (6) - Nude fotos of kids (6) - kids nudi photo (6) - nude nature foto (6) - nude fotos kids (6) - kids foto (6) - nude children gallery (5) - mss (5) - arabic nude (5) - nude foto s children (5) - child nude foto (5) - childrens nude (5) - nude kid fotos (5) - nature nude kids (5) - nude foto of kids (5) - nature foto (5) - nude child fotos (5) - kid nude fotos (5) - small kids nude (5) - nude foto small kids (5) - sex nature (4) - foto porno kids (4) - porno foto nude kids (4) - kid is nude (4) - porno dans la nature (4) - foto kids nudi (4) - nudes foto (4) - foto S sex (4) - nude in nature (4) - kids fotos porno (4) - porno kids foto (4) - sexs natur (4) - Kids nudity foto (4) - nude small kids (4) - foto nude galery (4) - nude kidz foto (4) - Nudes in nature (4) - fotos nude children (4) - foto children nude (4) - nature sex.com (4) - nude kids fot (4) - children nude fotos (3) - nudi kids (3) - foto cildren nude (3) - kids foto porno (3) - foto childrens nude (3) - nude kids galleries (3) - free nude foto of kids (3) - nude kids fotos de (3) - child nud (3) - child fotos nude (3) - kidz foto (3) - kids nude nature (3) - nature and wikipedia (3) - naked kids fotos (3) - children nud fotos (3) - fotos children nude (3) - nature nude child (3) - small nude foto (3) - nonude kides (3) - foto kids porno (3) - wikipedia nudes (3) - www.nude kids.com (3) - nude Kids"wikipedia (3) - kids foto sex (3) - foto nude child (3) - small nude kids (3) - porno kids fotos (3) - nature sex (3) - wikipedia porno (3) - free nude kids foto (3) - www.nude-kids.com (3) - MA SSONB SSON (3) - kid foto (2) - nature nude kidz (2) - kids nature nude (2) - wikipedia brittannica comparison (2) - no nude child fotografias (2) - porno childen foto (2) - wikipedia api (2) -
[...] The argument about Wikipedia versus Britannica continues to rage in libraryland. The questions are about authority and the likelihood of outright deception, of course, and a recent round brought up the limitations of peer review as exemplified in the 1989 cold fusion controversy, where two scientists claimed to have achieved a nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. Randy Souther, from the University of San Francisco, asked us to look more carefully: FYI, cold fusion in 1989 was a media fiasco, but not a fraud. The research is still controversial, but continues today with publications in more than 50 peer-reviewed journals. But you would never realize this by reading Britannica’s one-paragraph article, which is stuck in 1989; Wikipedia’s gives a reasonable overview, and is up-to-date. [...]