Internet encyclopaedias go head to head

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
Authors: Jim Giles [edit item]
Citation: Nature 438 : 900-901. 2005.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: No
Database(s):
DOI: 10.1038/438900a.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head is a publication by Jim Giles.


[edit] Abstract

Jimmy Wale's Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.

[edit] Research questions

"how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?"

Research details

Topics: Reliability [edit item]
Domains: Biology, Chemistry, Physics [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Statistical analysis [edit item]
Data source: Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article, Website [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

[edit] Comments

"The difference in accuracy between Wikipedia and Britannica proved not to be extreme; "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three." p. 900"


Further notes[edit]

This is the most famous reliability study of Wikipedia. It is notable because it was sponsored by the highly-reputed Nature magazine, and because it compared Wikipedia directly with the hitherto undisputed acme of English encyclopediaship, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Facts about "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head"RDF feed
AbstractJimmy Wale's Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
CommentsThe difference in accuracy between Wikipedia and Britannica proved not to be extreme; "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three." p. 900
ConclusionOnly eight serious errors, such as misinteOnly eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.
Data sourceWikipedia pages +
Doi10.1038/438900a +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Internet%2Bencyclopaedias%2Bgo%2Bhead%2Bto%2Bhead%22 +
Has authorJim Giles +
Has domainBiology +, Chemistry + and Physics +
Has topicReliability +
Pages900-901 +
Peer reviewedNo +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inNature +
Research designStatistical analysis +
Research questionshow do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?
Revid10,832 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleInternet encyclopaedias go head to head
Unit of analysisArticle + and Website +
Urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/438900a +
Volume438 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageEnglish +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +
Year2005 +