Wikipedia Gets Things Right
by
Liz Gannes
on
14 December 2005, 00:00
Categories:
Internet
Topics:
nature
,
Wikipedia
,
adam curry
,
Jimmy Wales
,
John Seigenthaler
,
Rogers Cadenhead
A team of expert reviewers found the science entries in the online collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia to have about the same accuracy as those in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, according to a Nature article that appeared Wednesday.
WikipediaOf the 42 science-related entries analyzed in the study, Wikipedia averaged four inaccuracies, while Britannica averaged three. (Inaccuracies included factual errors, critical omissions, or misleading statements, according to Nature.)
NatureWikipedia has been under fire recently after public criticism from John Seigenthaler, a former editor at USA Today, whose Wikipedia entry had been altered to implicate him in the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy.
USA TodayThe writer of the incorrect information came forward last week after the outcry to apologize for his prank.
Who Can You Trust?
It was also discovered recently that Podshow’s Adam Curry had altered the Wikipedia entry on podcasting to de-emphasize others’ roles in the creation of the new technology for distributing audio files.
After blogger and coder Rogers Cadenhead exposed the fact that Mr. Curry’s IP address was responsible for the ego-boosting edits, Mr. Curry apologized. His deletions have been reworked into the entry.
exposedThe incidents set off a large-scale debate over the trustworthiness and usefulness of the open-source encyclopedia.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said during the hullabaloo that he would change the contribution rules to allow only registered members to start new entries.
An internal memo from TheNew York Timespublished on Poynter Online told writers of that paper’s business section not to fact-check their articles using Wikipedia.
TheNew York TimesNature also surveyed recent contributors to its magazine about their knowledge of Wikipedia. Of the more than 1,000 scientists, over 70 percent had heard of Wikipedia, 17 percent consulted it on a weekly basis, and less than 10 percent had ever updated an entry.
In an accompanying editorial, Nature endorsed Mr. Wales’ request for more scientists to contribute their expert knowledge to Wikipedia.