Wikipedia - Page 2




View Poll Results :How reliable is Wikipedia?
Always right. 2 7.14%
Right more often than wrong. 23 82.14%
Wrong more often than right. 3 10.71%
Always wrong. 0 0%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Wikipedia
 
December 18th, 2005  
USAFBoy
 
 
Wikipedia
they are good but also have
December 21st, 2005  
NavyBrat88
 
 
I use Wikipedia a lot for research. I think it is pretty reliable
March 25th, 2006  
Airborne Eagle
 
 
Turns out, that research wasn't exactly fair to Encyclopedia Britanica.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...lofight24.html

Britannica defends its status

By Dave Carpenter
The Associated Press
CHICAGO — Encyclopædia Britannica has completed an exhaustive research article on an unlikely new topic: questions about its accuracy.
The publisher's verdict: It was wronged.
Firing back at an article in the science journal Nature that likened its accuracy to that of Wikipedia, the Internet site that lets anyone contribute, Britannica said in a 20-page statement this week that "almost everything about the journal's investigation ... was wrong and misleading."
It demanded a retraction.
The encyclopedia publisher, which has enjoyed an almost unassailed reputation for reliability since the 18th century, called Nature's research invalid, its study poorly carried out and its findings "so error-laden that it was completely without merit."
"The entire undertaking — from the study's methodology to the misleading way Nature 'spun' the story — was misconceived," Britannica said.
But the war of words didn't end there.
Nature, in a statement on its Web site that a spokeswoman said was written by Editor Phil Campbell, stood by the article despite Britannica's accusations of misrepresentation, sloppiness and indifference to scholarly standards.
The flap stems from Nature's online article Dec. 15 that, supposedly based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, said Wikipedia is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Britannica.
The article, which has since been updated, differed from the normal practice in that it was "an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature" rather than a paper written by scientists and submitted to the journal for peer review. It also came out at a time Wikipedia was under criticism for high-profile errors in some entries.
Nature concluded such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule.
Britannica refused comment at the time, instead responding this week.
Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas declined comment Thursday beyond the article on its Web site.
--
Wikipedia