Online encyclopedia Wikipedia‘s taken well-deserved hits recently for its bogus entry on a friend of the Kennedy family. But readers need proper context for such criticism. If a publication makes a mistake (which, eventually, we all do), how does its error rate compare with those of others?
The journal Nature this week provides a partial answer. In its investigation, Nature asked leading scientists to examine articles on Wikipedia and in Encyclopaedia Britannica on a variety of science topics. In the 42 articles examined, researchers found 162 errors, omissions or misleading statements in the Wikipedia entries, with 123 in Britannica. Yet the researchers categorized just eight errors as serious – and those were evenly split, with four in Wikipedia and four in Britannica.
The investigation demonstrates, once again, that Wikipedia is not a perfect source of 100-percent accurate information. But neither is Encyclopaedia Britannica. That Wikipedia was able to perform as well as Brittanica in avoid serious errors on difficult scientific content provides a strong endorsement for the concept of getting good information by letting readers collectively write and edit it.
About Robert Niles
