Test of Wikipedia Lacks Significant Samples
TECHNOLOGY
COMMENTARY
I am guessing that everyone has read about the false biography in Wikipedia. Now in the news as a result of that story are the results of Nature.com's test comparing 42 science articles in Wikipedia to matching articles in Encyclopedia Britannica. The news stories about the test paint Wikipedia in a favorable way, much to the glee of bloggers all over the Web.
Sorry folks, I have to diverge from the unedited masses on this one. Taking a sample of 42 out of 3.7 million articles for a test in no way proves Wikipedia is valid. It simply means the test data holds true for 42 out of 3.7 million articles.
Since the test in question was limited to 'scientific' articles, the test never comes close to addressing the bias that pops up in Wikipedia's more controversial articles.
Take for example, the differences in bias found in a comparison between Wiki entries for FOX News and CBS News.
By the third paragraph of Wikipedia's FOX News article we find that editorializing replaces facts as the content digresses into the discussion of the politics of FOX News slogans. Further into the article, we find a whole section (nearly a quarter of the article) devoted to criticisms and "Controversies and allegations of bias."
By contrast, Wikipedia's CBS News article is broken into small segments devoted through some strange logic to the network's individual news programs. The CBS Evening News article mentions Dan Rather's retirement and then devotes two whole sentences to issues surrounding 'Rathergate.' There is no in-depth discussion of liberal bias as charged by folks like Bernard Goldberg, whose own Wikipedia article questions his work subjectively.
For a true taste of what kind of online encyclopedia you can recommend to your kids, be sure to look at the CBS Morning News entry entitled: 1950s: "Good God, what a f@#*up!"
Nature magazine's test only proves Wikipedia authors are pretty good at cutting and pasting scientific information into articles. The test says nothing about overall quality of 1.3 million Wikipedia articles. For best results, go browse Wikipedia's politics on your own.
Why should I take time to help Wikipedia fix its content problems when someone can come right behind me and undo my work? A better question is, why would I want to refer to a Wikipedia if I need reliable (make that edited and checked to be accurate) information?
Wikipedia is a good exercise in Web 2.0, and maybe that's good enough.
NEWSBYTES
Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.
Wikipedia survives research test
(BBC News) The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
TENSION: Here's your sign
GRAVITY: Blame Web 2.0
Tags: News, Computers and Internet, technology, New Media, online, Web2.0, Web 2.0, Wikipedia
COMMENTARYI am guessing that everyone has read about the false biography in Wikipedia. Now in the news as a result of that story are the results of Nature.com's test comparing 42 science articles in Wikipedia to matching articles in Encyclopedia Britannica. The news stories about the test paint Wikipedia in a favorable way, much to the glee of bloggers all over the Web.
Sorry folks, I have to diverge from the unedited masses on this one. Taking a sample of 42 out of 3.7 million articles for a test in no way proves Wikipedia is valid. It simply means the test data holds true for 42 out of 3.7 million articles.
Since the test in question was limited to 'scientific' articles, the test never comes close to addressing the bias that pops up in Wikipedia's more controversial articles.
Take for example, the differences in bias found in a comparison between Wiki entries for FOX News and CBS News.
By the third paragraph of Wikipedia's FOX News article we find that editorializing replaces facts as the content digresses into the discussion of the politics of FOX News slogans. Further into the article, we find a whole section (nearly a quarter of the article) devoted to criticisms and "Controversies and allegations of bias."
By contrast, Wikipedia's CBS News article is broken into small segments devoted through some strange logic to the network's individual news programs. The CBS Evening News article mentions Dan Rather's retirement and then devotes two whole sentences to issues surrounding 'Rathergate.' There is no in-depth discussion of liberal bias as charged by folks like Bernard Goldberg, whose own Wikipedia article questions his work subjectively.
For a true taste of what kind of online encyclopedia you can recommend to your kids, be sure to look at the CBS Morning News entry entitled: 1950s: "Good God, what a f@#*up!"
Nature magazine's test only proves Wikipedia authors are pretty good at cutting and pasting scientific information into articles. The test says nothing about overall quality of 1.3 million Wikipedia articles. For best results, go browse Wikipedia's politics on your own.
Why should I take time to help Wikipedia fix its content problems when someone can come right behind me and undo my work? A better question is, why would I want to refer to a Wikipedia if I need reliable (make that edited and checked to be accurate) information?
Wikipedia is a good exercise in Web 2.0, and maybe that's good enough.
NEWSBYTES
Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.
Wikipedia survives research test
(BBC News) The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
TENSION: Here's your sign
GRAVITY: Blame Web 2.0
Tags: News, Computers and Internet, technology, New Media, online, Web2.0, Web 2.0, Wikipedia
posted by Steven Moyer at 10:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home