The Lazy Skeptic

Friday, December 16, 2005

On Wikipedia

I've heard talk recently about the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. I know I've used it as a starting point for doing research, but never without external/responsible sources. On December 14, the Journal Nature had an article on Wikipedia, comparing it to Britannica's online version. They examined 42 science related articles and looked for errors in each version from the testimony of their experts.

"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."

I've always been a fan of Wikipedia, I believe it has it's strong and weak points. Wikipedia, for example, is bad at keeping objective articles about controversial subjects(even illegitimate controversy), since people like to deface them. On the other hand, the depth of articles on incredibly obscure topics can be amazing.

Tycho, from Penny-Arcade, the online comic strip, had some choice words on the encyclopedia today:

"The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information."”

Full text...

Wikipedia satisfies me for what I tend to use it for. A starting-point for research into obscure or topical subjects. Whatever you care to know, there is probably an article about it on Wikipedia; though it could be poorly written and just plain wrong. At the very least it might have some links to sources of better credibility.


PS: I made commenting easier and harder, at the same time. You no longer need to be a member of Blogger to comment, but you will need to enter the crazy word.

2 Comments:

  • Ha Ha!

    That crazy word didn't stand a chance.

    "I'm in."

    Interesting post, bout time someone tested the accuracy of Wiki. I think it frightens me more though on the Brittanica side. Aren't they supposed to be sooo good?

    The TWIT guys talked about Wiki a bit. Forget most of the story, but it involved some litigation. The guys share your view on it, and use it as a starting point.

    I like the fact it has crazy obscure entries. Best thing about it.

    Keep up the "lazy" work.

    -Andrew

    By Anonymous Anonymous, on 12/16/2005 5:22 PM  

  • One of my favorite obscure entries is that on Martial Law the TV show. Being the first to write the article though, I'm biased.

    By Blogger Aaron, on 12/16/2005 5:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home