Wiki runs Encyclopaedia Britannica close as authority

Posted on 16 Dec 2005 at 10:22

A face off has been staged between the upstart DIY Internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia and the venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica. According to researchers from the scientific journal Nature, the two closely match each other in terms of accuracy when it came to science entries.

Given the nature of Wikipedia, the results are surprising. Compared with Britannica, which is compiled solely by teams of experts, almost anyone could enter or amend a particular entry. Therefore one might assume that more inaccuracies would creep in. This turns out not to be the case.

A team from Nature compared various scientific fact based entries between the two. In the study 42 different entries were tested. Somewhat surprisingly the team found little difference in accuracy between the two. According to Nature the average science entry in Wikipedia held around four inaccuracies; whereas Encyclopaedia Britannica had about three.

The growth of Wikipedia has been phenomenal. It currently has around 3.7 million different articles in 200 different languages. The English language version alone is growing at the rate of 1,500 articles a day.

The results will come as welcome news to the supporters of Wikipedia. The recent case of John Seigenthaler has highlighted the problems of the approach. To guard against anyone wishing to post a distorted view of the facts, Wikipedia has had to tighten the rules over who is allowed to edit entries.

The full article comparing the two encyclopaedias is on the Nature website.

Author: Steve Malone