4 ms·

I don't buy it. I guess your implicit argument is that normal encyclopedias are better than Wikipedia, but overestimate the extent to which that is true, so err

I don't buy it. I guess your implicit argument is that normal encyclopedias are better than Wikipedia, but overestimate the extent to which that is true, so errors are good news because they remind that errors exist. That seems kind of weak. If I eat at a local greasy-spoon and get sick, I'm not going to say "This is just a reminder that I know eating here makes me sick, whereas I would be taken by surprise if I got sick at a nicer restaurant."

gvb 16y ago
"An investigation reported in the journal Nature in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia See especially the section on comparative studies. There have been more studies and more recent studies than just the 2005 study quoted above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Compar... Note that the references are provided. Your assignment is to read them and correct any errors you find in the article.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Precisely. The sad truth is that despite all of the perceived (and real) inaccuracies in wikipedia, there does not exist a more accurate single source of information on such a wide variety of topics. Wikipedia may see the occasional hoax, and may see its fair share of biases et al but other sources have the same problems. How many encyclopedia's parroted Washington Irving's hoax that the western world believed the Earth was flat prior to Columbus's voyages, for example? In the event that a wikipedia user remains unsophisticated and does not acquire a degree of critical thinking the worst case scenario is that they are subject only to more or less the same degree of inaccuracies as any other encyclopedia. This is why wikipedia is a superior encyclopedia, because in the best cause it engenders critical thinking and in the worst case it's equivalent to just about any other source, so on average wikipedia users come out ahead.

gvb 16y ago

"An investigation reported in the journal Nature in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia See especially the section on comparative studies. There have been more studies and more recent studies than just the 2005 study quoted above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Compar... Note that the references are provided. Your assignment is to read them and correct any errors you find in the article.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Precisely. The sad truth is that despite all of the perceived (and real) inaccuracies in wikipedia, there does not exist a more accurate single source of information on such a wide variety of topics. Wikipedia may see the occasional hoax, and may see its fair share of biases et al but other sources have the same problems. How many encyclopedia's parroted Washington Irving's hoax that the western world believed the Earth was flat prior to Columbus's voyages, for example? In the event that a wikipedia user remains unsophisticated and does not acquire a degree of critical thinking the worst case scenario is that they are subject only to more or less the same degree of inaccuracies as any other encyclopedia. This is why wikipedia is a superior encyclopedia, because in the best cause it engenders critical thinking and in the worst case it's equivalent to just about any other source, so on average wikipedia users come out ahead.