Wikipedia Vs Encyclopedia Britannica

An expert-driven study of Wikipedia claimed that Wikipedia was just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

The study, which was published in the journal Nature, has named Wikipedia as a good source of accurate information. This is despite the common misbelief by many people that because the information is not sourced from credible authors, it lacks general accountability and thus has no place in the world of serious information gathering (Terdiman, 2005). Wikipedia, which is a free, open-access encyclopedia lets anyone create and edit information; providing accurate information by a community made up of thousands of volunteer editors. It is this passionate community of contributors from all around the world who wield control over Wikipedia, completing all the maintenance tasks and often rectifying incorrect information within minutes of its being submitted.

I found this study by Nature, particularly interesting and somewhat ironic. This is primarily because in university, when producing an academic text, referencing Wikipedia is completely prohibited. This is due to the fact that, as stated by one of my law lecturers, “It’s completely controlled by just a couple of guys in California, how could we possibly trust it?” This is a very common point of view, owing to the fact that Wikipedia’s content can be corrected by anybody with access to the internet while Encyclopedia Britannica’s content is completely in the hands of nineteen full-time “professional” editors (Britannica, 2008). These two different styles of forming content both have their strengths and their weaknesses.

Wikipedia is not the free-for-all that many paint it to be. Its articles are primarily edited by a group of a few hundred volunteers; thus representing a traditional organisation much like that which maintains Britannica except on a larger scale (Wales, 2007). This means that the information is ultimately overseen by a select group and subject to the inadequacies of its members. An example is Kim Dabelstein Petersen, the person responsible for editing the Wikipedia information on global warming who was later revealed to be opting to delete out any content that alleged that climate change was not a proven theory (Marohasy, 2008). In order to ensure that her content retained her points-of-view, Petersen would patrol her articles and de-edit any corrections (Solomon, 2008). This goes to the show that the site which is renowned for its information freedom, is subject to the same sort of biases by its editors as any other encyclopedia.

Encyclopedia Britannica submitted a 20-page paper to Nature, disputing the findings in their comparative study; claiming that “Almost everything about the journal’s investigation, from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and its headline, was wrong and misleading.” The paper felt that the study (which had gone on to be widely publicised in the media) was based on such poorly carried out research that all of its findings should be deemed invalid. In an act of defiance, Wikipedia began a page consisting of “Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia;” which attempts to prove the advantages of an editorial process where anyone can edit at any time.

This rivalry between information outlets will ensure that encyclopedias will endeavour to provide accurate information, by keeping each other in check and ultimately providing high-quality material.