For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
There were a few dust-ups in the wake of the Nature affair, notably Middlebury College history department's banning of Wikipedia citations in student papers in 2007. The resulting debate turned out to be quite helpful as a number of librarians finally popped out of the woodwork to say hey, now wait one minute, no undergraduate paper should be citing any encyclopedia whatsoever, which, doy, and it ought to have been pointed out a lot sooner.
Its a good encyclopedia and as valid as any encyclopedia with the benefit of being updated daily
While I agree no encyclopedia should be a reference for any scholarly paper, I maintain there's an entire class of things wikipedia is a stupendous source for. I.E. MOSFET transistors. You'll be hard pressed to find a more complete survey replete with citations. People who assail Wiki's credibility rightly do so with regard to popular articles, but expert articles tend to be written by those same experts they hand the articles to to check the validity. Scholars and professionals have a very real interest in properly representing their field, and wikipedia has become the defacto medium of that effort. Post edited by Puckfist at 2/9/2012 2:41:33 PM
I don't see any facts Crybaby. Just your opinion which I value less than the dogshit I stepped in this morning. In fact I thought about you when scrapping it off my shoe. Life is funny! _______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~ I love how certain folks think wiki is a such a reliable source. When I look up ignorant it lists Nathan and Mockery as examples. Who knew
You realize those links are just general overviews of the books, right?
I get that. However people use wiki likes its infallible and the best source online. I just find while it's certainly useful it's not the best source for reliable info
Where is that crybaby Mock at? Oh snap he is in Californstein time!
I very much disagree. Wikipedia is remarkably accurate on specialist topics, i.e. the stuff nobody would go there to deface and nobody but scholars care about. If you want to learn about the indian philosopher Samkara Wiki is one of the best resources available online.
You would have to be good at, or knowledgeable, about something specific to ever know that though..........soooooooo
That statement is yet again falling on deaf, blind, and dumb ears.
That sucks, because he only reads in fiction and make believe.......it's the only thing that would explain his fictitious and fallacious views of the world.
And you wonder why I don't waste my time with you. Look at how you're behaving.
Have Snake hand you a box of tissues.......
I act this way because it's the only rational interaction I can clearly have with you zombie trolls anymore.
You act as if I was civil, like NBF, that I'd somehow get more flies with honey than I will with my vitriolic vinegar.
After eight years on this forum I think I know better than that.......plus post pounding, with mindless belligerence, like the people I am arguing with, is far more fun for me now. If you can't beat them, join them........
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~ I would agree on some topics. But having a basic understanding is significantly different than having a good understanding on things.
Of which, you are clearly incapable of commenting on either.
I'm not even sure, since you never post anything specific, nor sound sources, that you even have a rudimentary understanding of anything that you try so desperately to make yourself look like an incoherent imbecile on.
Originally posted by: Puckfist While I agree no encyclopedia should be a reference for any scholarly paper, I maintain there's an entire class of things wikipedia is a stupendous source for. I.E. MOSFET transistors. You'll be hard pressed to find a more complete survey replete with citations. People who assail Wiki's credibility rightly do so with regard to popular articles, but expert articles tend to be written by those same experts they hand the articles to to check the validity. Scholars and professionals have a very real interest in properly representing their field, and wikipedia has become the defacto medium of that effort.
I've noticed the exact same thing. Wiki fails hardest on subjective, non-definitive topics........
Anything where the science and math is sound Wiki kicks ass on. Just today I needed a reference on atmospheric scintillation and Wiki had my back for me.
The only thing Snake has ever posted that was specific was:
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.