I disagree. Wikipedia's strength is in numbers. The best articles are those written by many authors, not esoteric subjects with one author.
This link has been bookmarked by 8 people . It was first bookmarked on 05 May 2007, by Mike Wesch.
-
14 Jan 11
-
31 Dec 07
Wilfred RubensNature concludeert niet dat de Wikipedia kwalitatief gelijk is aan de Online Brittanica
media wiki research web2.0 Open_Educational_Resources wisdom_of_crowds
-
28 Dec 07
Leigh BlackallKapor's remarks inspired me to take a look at that much-cited Nature article. I found that it was something less than I had expected.
-
05 May 07
-
Add Sticky NoteThe Nature survey, in other words, played to Wikipedia's strength.
-
-
Add Sticky Note"Several Nature reviewers [commented] that the Wikipedia article they reviewed was poorly structured and confusing.
-
Then they should just re-write it themselves. How is *that* for a strength of Wikipedia!?
-
-
Add Sticky NoteWikipedia:
-
Score one again for Wikipedia: The following criticisms have already been addressed. When is the next Britannica coming out?
-
-
-
26 Oct 06
-
26 Feb 06
-
... it's a fairly short, staff-written piece based on an informal survey carried out by a group of Nature reporters. The reporters chose 50 scientific topics that are covered by both Wikipedia and Britannica, selecting entries that were of relatively similar length in both publications. For each topic, they also chose an academic expert. They then sent copies of both entries to the respective experts, asking them to list any "errors or critical omissions" appearing in the writeups. They received 42 responses. ... First and most important, the survey looked only at scientific subjects. As has often been noted, Wikipedia's quality tends to be highest in esoteric scientific and technological topics. ... Second, the Nature reporters filtered out some of the criticisms offered by the experts. ... Third, in reporting the results, the Nature reporters view all inaccuracies as being equal. ... my sense in reading through the lists was that the inaccuracies in Wikipedia tended to somewhat more substantial than those in Britannica. ... If you were to state the conclusion of the Nature survey accurately, then, the most you could say is something like this: "If you only look at scientific topics, if you ignore the structure and clarity of the writing, and if you treat all inaccuracies as equivalent, then you would still find that Wikipedia has about 32% more errors and omissions than Encyclopedia Britannica." That's hardly a ringing endorsement.
-
... it's a fairly short, staff-written piece based on an informal survey carried out by a group of Nature reporters. The reporters chose 50 scientific topics that are covered by both Wikipedia and Britannica, selecting entries that were of relatively similar length in both publications. For each topic, they also chose an academic expert. They then sent copies of both entries to the respective experts, asking them to list any "errors or critical omissions" appearing in the writeups. They received 42 responses. ... First and most important, the survey looked only at scientific subjects. As has often been noted, Wikipedia's quality tends to be highest in esoteric scientific and technological topics. ... Second, the Nature reporters filtered out some of the criticisms offered by the experts. ... Third, in reporting the results, the Nature reporters view all inaccuracies as being equal. ... my sense in reading through the lists was that the inaccuracies in Wikipedia tended to somewhat more substantial than those in Britannica. ... If you were to state the conclusion of the Nature survey accurately, then, the most you could say is something like this: "If you only look at scientific topics, if you ignore the structure and clarity of the writing, and if you treat all inaccuracies as equivalent, then you would still find that Wikipedia has about 32% more errors and omissions than Encyclopedia Britannica." That's hardly a ringing endorsement.
-
-
17 Feb 06
Public Stiky Notes
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.