Hi everyone,
Nature magazine has just published the results of an investigation
comparing Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica regarding accuracy of
scientific information. The result: almost a tie. Examining 42
scientific topics, Nature's team of experts and editors found an average
of four inaccuracies per Wikipedia entry, and three per Britannica entry.
I've written about the study on my blog; I also propose the possibility
of adding by-lines to Wikipedia entries that include eBay-like trust
rankings for each Wikipedian, allowing the reader to make a more
informed judgment about the accuracy of the entry.
The full blog entry can be found here:
http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2005/12/natures_wikiped.html
Here's a snippet:
The magazine asked experts in various scientific fields to review 42
topics in both Wikipedia and Britannica. The result: both sources had a
similar number of mistakes. On average, Wikipedia entries had four
errors or ommissions, while Britannica had three. When you add these up
with misleading statements, 162 were found in Wikipedia, while 123
appeared in Britannica.
"People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in
Britannica," Nature quotes information scientist Michael Twidale. "Print
encyclopaedias are often set up as the gold standards of information
quality against which the failings of faster or cheaper resources can be
compared. These findings remind us that we have an 18-carat standard,
not a 24-carat one."
<snip>
While I'm concerned about protecting the anonymity of Wikipedians
posting on sensitive topics, particularly from countries that oppress
free expression, this issue only affects a very small minority of
entries. Isn't it more important for Wikipedia to build confidence among
the online public? If that's the case, the anonymity policy needs to be
assessed more radically. I love Wikipedia, but I'd feel a hell of a lot
more comfortable with what I read if there were also a transparent paper
trail for the Wikipedians editing articles.
Perhaps a solution would be to strongly discourage anonymity. For those
entries that have edits posted by an anonymous Wikipedian, place an icon
prominently on the page warning us that the entry was edited
anonymously, so readers can make an informed judgment. For those that
have been edited by people willing to log in with their names, have
those names appear on the entry's page as a by-line, with links to their
biographies. I know that all of this information can be found in the
entry's history page, but the average Internet user who doesn't know the
inner workings of Wikipedia won't realize this. By placing the names of
the contributors on the marquee of each entry, the authors are forced to
stand up and take credit for it - for better or worse - just like a
scientific journal.
Then, perhaps we need to add an eBay-like rating system for Wikipedians.
For Wikipedians whose work is judged as accurate, let readers award them
a point, or perhaps 1-10 rating system (ie, a perfect 10 for stellar
wikipedians with strong credentials who cite primary source materials
obsessively, and a 1 for those whose work is clearly incompetent). That
way, when you go to a wikipedia entry, you can judge it on the rating of
the Wikipedians. You could even do the same for the articles themselves:
wouldn't it be useful to know if 83% of the readers of one particular
entry found it lacking in one way or another?
<snip>
The Nature investigation can be found here:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
thanks,
andy
--
-----------------------------------
Andy Carvin
Program Director
EDC Center for Media & Community
acarvin @ edc . org
http://www.digitaldivide.net
http://katrina05.blogspot.com
Blog: http://www.andycarvin.com
-----------------------------------
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in the body of the message.
