Print
Send to friend
RSS feedsScientific journal Nature has come out in support of the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, following an " expert-led investigation" that involved peer reviews of the content contained in the free online resource.
Nature asked 50 experts from a range of science disciplines to review the accuracy of articles from both Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Out of 42 responses, in which the experts "reviewed" the factual accuracy and balance of the pieces, they discerned little variation.
The journal reported: "Among the entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three." In all, the panel found 162 factual errors, omissions or misleading statements in Wikipedia, against 123 in Britannica.
In an editorial, Nature stated: "The accuracy of science in Wikipedia is surprisingly good: the number of errors in a typical Wikipedia science article is not substantially more than in Encyclopaedia Britannica, often considered the gold-standard entry-level reference work".
"People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica, " one information scientist told Nature. "These findings remind us we have an 18-carat standard, not a 24-carat one". Wikipedia's strongest suit, he added, is the speed at which it can be updated.
Wikipedia is developing a keen following among information professionals and the scientific community. Last month it won the IWR Readers Award for Technology of the Year at the International Information Industry Awards.
