What is the Shocking Truth About Britannica's Errors?

[fourier jr]

hey a while ago someone posted a link to a parody of wikipedia.org whose name i forget. i forgot to bookmark it & the search engine doesn't seem to find it for me. can someone put up the link 1 more time?

 

[motai]

hey a while ago someone posted a link to a parody of wikipedia.org whose name i forget. i forgot to bookmark it & the search engine doesn't seem to find it for me. can someone put up the link 1 more time?

You mean the Uncyclopedia: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

 

[mattmns]

I forgot about that website too, thanks motai!

 

[fourier jr]

coo, thx

 

[ranger]

One thing I don't like about both of these sites is that anyone can edit the articles. Then when they save it everyone can read it

Imagine what someone with a lot of time on their hands could do.

 

[ZapperZ]

One thing I don't like about both of these sites is that anyone can edit the articles. Then when they save it everyone can read it
Imagine what someone with a lot of time on their hands could do.

Then you must have missed the latest debacle surrounding Wikipedia. Someone already did!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html

Which is why I never use wikipedia as a source for anything. When I'm looking for something, the last thing I want to worry about is the validity of the content. Things like this simply prove that you can't trust the content.

Zz.

 

[Pengwuino]

Work on the iPod yocto began 13 minutes ago. The yocto is the smallest yet of the iPods: its width and length are physically impossible to measure simultaneously, and it is the first known digital audio player to weigh less than air. The yocto sells in 2 MB (3 songs) for $2,029 USD and in 2.1 MB (4 songs) for $20,000,029 plus your firstborn child (to be eaten by Steve Jobs). It was launched in two colors: burnt sienna and beige.
* Mega audio: for the first time, users can listen to the songs on his/her iPod using mega audio, which is far superior to normal audio. The only difference is relative volume.
* Mini headphones: these extremely tiny headphones absorb into your eardrum, much as an iPod Yocto goes into your skin. They connect to the iPod Yocto via your bloodstream, and when that fails (usually during heart attack or stroke), Bluetooth Wireless technology.

 

[JasonRox]

Thank god I never relied on Wikipedia. I certainly never will.

 

[Blahness]

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[ranger]

Then you must have missed the latest debacle surrounding Wikipedia. Someone already did!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html
Which is why I never use wikipedia as a source for anything. When I'm looking for something, the last thing I want to worry about is the validity of the content. Things like this simply prove that you can't trust the content.
Zz.

This is something that I never knew before. I just noticed the "edit" button. I mostly used wiki as a reference and I also refer users of PF there for some good reading. I guess I'll be removing that from my bookmarks then.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is something that I never knew before. I just noticed the "edit" button. I mostly used wiki as a reference and I also refer users of PF there for some good reading. I guess I'll be removing that from my bookmarks then.

Don't get me wrong. There are some good info on Wikipedia. I know DrChinese actively tries to keep the information on Bell theorem on there as close to what is conventionally accepted. However, when there is the question on who is doing what, and whether it is accurate, then I cannot rely on such a source because I simply do not have time to figure out if the person doing the entry is a crackpot, an amateur, or an expert. I need a source of info that is reliable, and that is just not what I see in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, a lot of people reading wikipedia are not aware of this, even though this is the disclaimer written on the site. The accuracy of the information there is not guaranteed. While this is a common disclaimer even for Encyclopedia Britanica, the latter already has a distinguished reputation, and has a reputation to maintain. Thus, they have a vested interest in having their in-house editors to maintain the accuracy of the information they publish. I don't see the same thing for wikipedia.

I know that they have instituted a number of "safeguards" in light of this latest debacle. But I still do not have enough of a confidence to recommend it. There are many other more reliable resources I would go to first.

Zz.

 

[ranger]

Why is it so hard for wiki to have in-house editors? Mayb a lack of funding?

There are many other more reliable resources I would go to first.

Can you please share a few

 

[ZapperZ]

Fair is fair.

I have experessed my weariness of using Wikipedia as a reliable source. In this week's Nature[1], and talk about uncanny timing, the Editors of Nature did a comprehensive study of the accuracy of a set of information gathered from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britanica (EB). Surprise! They didn't find a significant difference in the accuracy of the information. You have to read the article to figure out what and how they tested this and came to this conclusion.

However, one striking agreement that everyone had was that the articles written in Wikipedia are not as well-written and coherent as that found in EB. One quote from the article reads:

Several Nature reviewers agreed with Panelas' point on readability, commenting that the Wikipedia article they reviewed was poorly structured and confusing. This criticism is common among information scientists, who also point to other problems with article quality, such as undue prominence given to controversial scientific theories.

But when Wikipedia screws up, it REALLY screws up. For example:

The most error-strewn article, that on Dmitry Mendeleev, co-creator of the periodic table, illustrates this. Michael Gordin, a science historian at Princeton University who wrote a 2004 book on Mendeleev, identified 19 errors in Wikipedia and 8 in Britannica. These range from minor mistakes, such as describing Mendeleev as the 14th child in his family when he was the 13th, to more significant inaccuracies. Wikipedia, for example, incorrectly describes how Mendeleev's work relates to that of British chemist John Dalton. "Who wrote this stuff?" asked another reviewer. "Do they bother to check with experts?"

But here's an interesting piece of information. When Nature asked 1000 of their authors, 70% has heard of Wikipedia. But get this, only 17% actually consulted it on a weekly basis, and only 10% are actually involved in updating it.

Zz.

[1] J. Giles, Nature v.438, p.900 (2005).

P.S. While I never use Wikipedia, to be fair, I also never use Encyclopedia Britanica either.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm pretty sure I haven't used Encyclopedia Britannica as a source since the 6th grade! Equating Wikipedia to that doesn't mean much in my mind. It's hardly the most updated, authoritative source on a subject. All it does is provide a quick overview if you need a definition of something with which you're entirely unfamiliar. I have periodically referenced Wikipedia here, not as the authoritative source on something, but rather because they have an understandable, plain English explanation of something that I know from other sources is accurate. There are too many contributors who can't write proper sentences though, and their entries can sometimes be very difficult to understand or open to misinterpretation because of poor writing.

The other concern I have is that it can be edited at any time. So, I might link to an article that is accurate today, but if some nitwit changes it tomorrow, people might get inaccurate information until it's corrected.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Wikipedia is a underrated. My friends and I tested it, and people are monitoring all edits done on a regular basis, even minor ones.

The simple way to maintain the enjoyment of using wikipedia as a fast and effective research tool is to first find the info on wikipedia, and then look for another source.

 

[mattmns]

I mostly use wikipedia for entertainment purposes, things that I am somewhat curious about, but I don't want to read a whole book about. I have, however, used wikipedia for math defnitions, and I think wikipedia has been quite reliable there.

 

[moose]

Then you must have missed the latest debacle surrounding Wikipedia. Someone already did!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html
Which is why I never use wikipedia as a source for anything. When I'm looking for something, the last thing I want to worry about is the validity of the content. Things like this simply prove that you can't trust the content.
Zz.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html

Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Whenever I do projects, I usually use wikipedia as one of my sources. If something I read on wikipedia were to not agree with what tons of other websites/books/encyclopedias, then obviously I wouldn't use that portion of it.

I love wikipedia whenever I wish to find out what something I recently heard is.

 

[ZapperZ]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html
Whenever I do projects, I usually use wikipedia as one of my sources. If something I read on wikipedia were to not agree with what tons of other websites/books/encyclopedias, then obviously I wouldn't use that portion of it.
I love wikipedia whenever I wish to find out what something I recently heard is.

You must have missed my follow-up regarding the Nature article.

But see, this is a perfect illustration on why I don't use Wikipedia, or even Britannica. Rather than read or rely on 2nd hand reporting done by CNN, I went directly to Nature that was doing the study itself. Note that the Nature article clearly stated that a lot of researchers do not use Wikipedia.

Zz.

 

[moose]

You must have missed my follow-up regarding the Nature article.

I read this thread once, and then I found the link and didn't know that anyone replied to it

It came as a shock to me, however, that Britannica has so many errors.