[Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica

[James Jacobs]

I know it's bad form to post an article in its entirety to a list, but I 
hope you'll forgive it this time in the interests of scholarly discussion. 
Below the article is also the the editorial that ran in the same issue.

Regards,

James Jacobs
________________________

>From 'Nature'.

Nature 438, 900-901 (15 December 2005) | doi:10.1038/438900a
Special ReportInternet encyclopaedias go head to head

Jim Giles
Top of page
Abstract

Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of 
its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.

One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a 
free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly 
growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a 
much-used resource. But it is also controversial: if anyone can edit entries, 
how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as 
Encyclopaedia Britannica?

everal recent cases have highlighted the potential problems. One article was 
revealed as falsely suggesting that a former assistant to US Senator Robert 
Kennedy may have been involved in his assassination. And podcasting pioneer 
Adam Curry has been accused of editing the entry on podcasting to remove 
references to competitors' work. Curry says he merely thought he was making the
entry more accurate.

However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature  the first to use 
peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science  suggests
that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule.

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, 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.

Considering how Wikipedia articles are written, that result might seem 
surprising. A solar physicist could, for example, work on the entry on the Sun,
but would have the same status as a contributor without an academic background.
Disputes about content are usually resolved by discussion among users.

But Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia and president of the encyclopaedia's 
parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation of St Petersburg, Florida, says 
the finding shows the potential of Wikipedia. "I'm pleased," he says. "Our goal
is to get to Britannica quality, or better."

Wikipedia is growing fast. The encyclopaedia has added 3.7 million articles in
200 languages since it was founded in 2001. The English version has more than 
45,000 registered users, and added about 1,500 new articles every day of 
October 2005. Wikipedia has become the 37th most visited website, according to
Alexa, a web ranking service.

But critics have raised concerns about the site's increasing influence, 
questioning whether multiple, unpaid editors can match paid professionals for 
accuracy. Writing in the online magazine TCS last year, former Britannica 
editor Robert McHenry declared one Wikipedia entry  on US founding father 
Alexander Hamilton  as "what might be expected of a high-school student". 
Opening up the editing process to all, regardless of expertise, means that 
reliability can never be ensured, he concluded.

Yet Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be 
great, at least when it comes to science entries. In the study, entries were 
chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad 
range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review.
Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two 
encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia.
A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then 
examined by Nature's news team.

Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, 
were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia.
But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading 
statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.

Editors at Britannica would not discuss the findings, but say their own studies
of Wikipedia have uncovered numerous flaws. "We have nothing against 
Wikipedia," says Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications at the 
company's headquarters in Chicago. "But it is not the case that errors creep in
on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written. There 
are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."

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 Michael Twidale, an information scientist at the 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says that Wikipedia's strongest 
suit is the speed at which it can updated, a factor not considered by Nature's
reviewers.

"People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica,"
Twidale adds. "Print encyclopaedias are often set up as the gold standards of 
information quality against which the failings of faster or cheaper resources 
can be compared. These findings remind us that we have an 18-carat standard, 
not a 24-carat one."

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 to improve Wikipedia, Wales is not so much interested in checking articles
with experts as getting them to write the articles in the first place.

As well as comparing the two encyclopaedias, Nature surveyed more than 1,000 
Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of Wikipedia and
17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to update it. 
The steady trickle of scientists who have contributed to articles describe the
experience as rewarding, if occasionally frustrating (see 'Challenges of being
a Wikipedian').

Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a "multiplier effect", says 
Wales. Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher
can boost article quality hugely. "Experts can help write specifics in a 
nuanced way," he says.

Wales also plans to introduce a 'stable' version of each entry. Once an article
reaches a specific quality threshold it will be tagged as stable. Further edits
will be made to a separate 'live' version that would replace the stable version
when deemed to be a significant improvement. One method for determining that 
threshold, where users rate article quality, will be trialled early next year.

[text box]

Vaughan Bell, a neuropsychologist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, UK, 
has reworked Wikipedia's entry on schizophrenia over the past two years. Around 
five others regularly contribute to the reworking, most of whom have not 
revealed whether they have academic backgrounds. Bell says that is not a 
problem, as disputes are settled through the discussion page linked to the 
entry, often by citing academic articles. "It's about the quality of what you 
do, not who you are," he explains.

While admitting it can be difficult settling arguments, Bell says he often 
learns something by doing so. One user posted a section on schizophrenia and 
violence that Bell considered little more than a "rant" about the need to lock 
up people with the illness. "But editing it did stimulate me to look up 
literature on schizophrenia and violence," he says. "Even people who are a pain 
in the arse can stimulate new thinking."

Others, particularly those who contribute to politically sensitive entries, 
have found the editing process more fraught. William Connolley, a climate 
researcher at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, has fought for two 
years with climate-change sceptics over the entry on global warming. When 
Connolley was insulted by one of the sceptics and the editing became a 'revert 
war' - where editors repeatedly undo each others' changes - the matter was 
referred to the encyclopaedia's administrators.

Two of Connolley's opponents were banned from editing any climate article for 
six months, but it was a bumpy process. The Wikipedia editors who oversaw the 
case took three months to reach a decision. They also punished Connolley for 
repeatedly changing the sceptics' edits, placing him on a six-month parole 
during which he is limited to one revert a day. Users who support Connolley 
have contested the decision.

"It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the 
encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had 
to deal with a fair amount of nonsense."

Jim Giles

[editorial in same issue]

Editorial

Nature 438, 890 (15 December 2005) | doi:10.1038/438890a
Wiki's wild world
Top of page
Abstract

Researchers should read Wikipedia cautiously and amend it enthusiastically.

Sometimes the stupid-sounding ideas turn out to be the ones that take off. 
Almost five years ago, a free online encyclopaedia known as Wikipedia was 
launched. To those familiar with the peer-review process, the premise behind 
the new publication seemed crazy: any user, regardless of expertise, can edit 
the entries. It sounded like a method for creating garbled and inaccurate 
articles, and many critics said so.

Fast-forward to 2005, and some of that criticism is looking misplaced. 
Wikipedia is now a huge reference source, with something approaching a million 
articles in the English version alone. It's true that many of its entries are 
confusing and badly structured; some of them are badly wrong, and sometimes the 
errors are deliberate. After the discovery of an outrageously false description 
of John Seigenthaler, a former editor of The Tennessean newspaper, Wikipedia's 
publishers introduced registration in an attempt to discourage (though it 
cannot prevent) "impulsive vandalism".

But as an investigation on page 900 of this issue shows, the accuracy of 
science in Wikipedia is surprisingly good: the number of errors in a typical 
Wikipedia science article is not substantially more than in Encyclopaedia 
Britannica, often considered the gold-standard entry-level reference work. That 
crazy idea is starting to look anything but stupid.

So can Wikipedia move up a gear and match the quality of rival reference works? 
Imagine the result if it did: a comprehensive, accurate and up-to-date 
reference work that can be accessed free from Manhattan to rural Mongolia. To 
achieve this, Wikipedia's administrators will have to tackle everything from 
future funding problems - the site is maintained by public donations - to 
doubts about whether enough new contributors can be found to increase the 
quality of the mushrooming number of entries. That latter point is critical, 
and here scientists can make a difference.

Judging by a survey of Nature authors, conducted in parallel with the accuracy 
investigation, only a small percentage of scientists currently contribute to 
Wikipedia. Yet when they do, they can make a significant difference. 
Wikipedia's non-expert contributors are, by and large, dedicated to getting 
things right on the site. But scientists can bring a critical eye to entries on 
subjects they study, often highlighting errors and misunderstandings that 
others have unintentionally introduced. They can also start entries on topics 
that other users may not want to tackle. It is no surprise, for example, that 
the entry on 'spin density wave' was originated by a physicist.

     Scientists can bring a critical eye to entries on subjects they study, 
highlighting errors that others have unintentionally introduced.

Editing pages is not always straightforward, as some users may disagree with 
changes. In politically sensitive areas such as climate change, researchers 
have had to do battle with sceptics pushing an editorial line that is out of 
kilter with mainstream scientific thinking. But this usually requires no more 
than a little patience. Wikipedia's users are generally interested in the 
reasoning behind proposed changes to articles. Backing up a claim with a 
peer-reviewed reference, for example, makes a world of difference.

Nature would like to encourage its readers to help. The idea is not to seek a 
replacement for established sources such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but 
to push forward the grand experiment that is Wikipedia, and to see how much it 
can improve. Select a topic close to your work and look it up on Wikipedia. If 
the entry contains errors or important omissions, dive in and help fix them. It 
need not take too long. And imagine the pay-off: you could be one of the people 
who helped turn an apparently stupid idea into a free, high-quality global 
resource.