Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica

Posted by Kenneth Ronkowitz on


Wikipedia is incredibly popular. Especially with students doing research. However, it is not as popular as an acceptable source with many teachers. I know of faculty who will not accept it as a research source. (Which won't stop students from using it.)

The general complaints against Wikipedia stem from the idea that it is wide open for contributors to post inaccurate information.

I won't argue all the points here, especially since the well-respected science journal Nature already did. They recently published an article concluding that ( for articles on science) Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

And, of course, Britannica released a rebuttal that disputes Nature's. You can download a pdf of it.

Check the links and decide for yourself. Just don't pretend it will go away.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

No comments

Add Comment

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
BBCode format allowed
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.
To leave a comment you must approve it via e-mail, which will be sent to your address after submission.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA