A recent post, probably by Chris Green, although possibly not here, flagged an article in _Inside Higher Education_ on why students shouldn't use Wikipedia for term papers (I agree).
[see "A stand against Wikipedia", January 26, http://www.insidehighered.com/index.php/news/2007/01/26/wiki ] Aside from the term paper issue, we've discussed the accuracy of Wikipedia on TIPS previously. A common opinion (among scholars, anyway) is that it's hopelessly flawed, and there's much supercilious sneering at its entries. Yet a modest comparison in _Nature_ between Wikipedia and Britannica showed that Wikipedia was only marginally worse than the Brit in errors. The _Inside_ article led me to a major review of the Wikipedia phenomenon by Rosenzweig (2006), unfortunately not available on-line. It's a long but interesting and informative evaluative review, and it turns out to be surprisingly positive on Wikipedia. Some selected quotes (the positive ones only): [Rosensweig compared 25 Wikipedia biographies against comparable entries in Encarta and in _American National Biography Online_] "The comparison is unfair--both publications have had multimillion-dollar budgets--but it is still illuminating, and it sheds some favorable light on Wikipedia" "In coverage, Wikipedia currently lags behind the comprehensive _American National Biography Online_...but exceeds the general-interest _Encarta_" "What is most impressive is that Wikipedia has found unpaid volunteers to write surprisingly detailed and reliable portraits of relatively obscure historical figures" "Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history." "Wikipedia, then, beats Encarta but not American National Biography Online in coverage and roughly matches Encarta in accuracy. This general conclusion is supported by [other] studies...a German computing magazine had experts compare [with German digiital encyclopedias]. It rated Wikipedia first". "Thus, the free and open-source encyclopedia Wikipedia offers a formidable challenge to the well-established and seemly authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica as well as to Microsoft's newer and well-regarded Encarta." [The main thing he faults Wikipedia for is writing style] Stephen Rosenzweig, R. (2006). Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past. _The Journal of American History, 93, 117-146. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 0C8 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm -----------------------------------------------------------------------"a --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
