This link has been bookmarked by 87 people . It was first bookmarked on 30 Jul 2006, by Ian Delaney.
-
26 Mar 08
-
20 Feb 08
-
27 Sep 07
-
05 Sep 07
Theresa Overallarticle (and update and rebuttals) about Nature Magazine's peer review comparing wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica
-
08 Aug 07
-
02 Aug 07
-
04 Jul 07
Tom KrieglsteinAn interesting comparison between the two types of encyclopedia. Wiki wins in the end.
-
11 Jun 07
-
30 May 07
-
13 Apr 07
-
05 Apr 07
Erin the LibrarianRead the latest science news stories, extended features and analysis, acclaimed columnists, plus blogs and multimedia specials - all brought to you by our award-winning team of science journalists.
-
27 Mar 07
-
16 Mar 07
-
07 Mar 07
-
26 Feb 07
-
09 Feb 07
-
25 Jan 07
-
22 Jan 07
-
Rena ShiffletJimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
-
15 Dec 06
-
14 Dec 06
-
12 Dec 06
doug_lss"Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds."
-
21 Nov 06
-
12 Nov 06
-
23 Sep 06
-
20 Sep 06
T HoffbauerInternet encyclopaedias go head to head Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. Jim Giles Jimmy Wales started the Internet-based Wikipedia. Click here to hear him talk
Delicious aus britannica community del.icio.us encyclopedia internet journal nature news read science web2.0 wiki wikipedia
-
14 Aug 06
-
05 Aug 06
-
Nature surveyed more than 1,000 Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of Wikipedia and 17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to update it. The steady trickle of scientists who have contributed to articles describe the experience as rewarding, if occasionally frustrating (see 'Challenges of being a Wikipedian').
-
"People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica," Twidale adds. "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."
-
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.
-
In the study, entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team.
-
However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule.
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
-
-
30 Jul 06
-
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
-
-
15 Jun 06
David WarlickThe exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
-
09 Jun 06
-
29 Mar 06
-
27 Mar 06
-
19 Mar 06
-
05 Mar 06
-
01 Mar 06
-
13 Feb 06
Justyna HofmoklJimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
-
10 Feb 06
-
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
-
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
-
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
-
-
09 Feb 06
-
03 Jan 06
-
21 Dec 05
Marja Verstellekwaliteit wikipedia ontloopt die van britannica niet, voor science artikelen. Niet zozeer omdat de wikipedia artikelen foutloos zouden zijn, maar omdat ook een encyclopedie als de Britannica veel fouten bevat
-
20 Dec 05
-
Marco MazzeiWiki come la Britannica
community encyclopedia internet media reference web2.0 wikipedia log _blogit newsletter
-
18 Dec 05
-
17 Dec 05
-
16 Dec 05
-
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head - Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
-
-
mikael böökJimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
-
15 Dec 05
jen jarson12/14/05...article about Nature study comparing wikipedia to britannica...from news@nature.com
article wikipedia encyclopedias accuracy authority internet open_source science future
-
Joel Pricean interesting comparison of dynamic versus static information sources
-
-
-
14 Dec 05
-
-
Yet Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great, at least when it comes to science entries. In the study, entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team.
-
Yet Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great, at least when it comes to science entries. In the study, entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team.
-
Page Comments
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.