COLLABORATIVE

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

UNRELIABLE TOOL?

Danelle Jordan Application & Practice

English 483

STOP & THINK

Do you trust collaborative search tools such as Wikipedia?

Why or why not?

YOU’RE NOT ALONE… Those who are internet savvy have

numerous misgivings concerning sites such as Wikipedia:

COMMON CRITICISMS “exposure to obvious or subtle vandalism of its

content” “attempts by strongly opinionated editors to

dominate articles” “inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing

for controversial assertions in articles” “edit wars and other types of nonconstructive

conflict among editors” “criticism of Wikipedia taken as personal

attacks upon it”**Ironically, these criticisms are discussed in depth in an article on Wikipedia that is “in” Wikipedia.

YET THE QUESTION MUST BE ASKED:

Are collaborative encyclopedias such as Wikipedia

significantly less reliable than other more reputable search tools

such as Encyclopedia Britannica?

LET’S FIND OUT!!

RESEARCH INDICATES… A controversial study entitled “Internet

Encyclopedias Go Head to Head” was published in 2005 in the journal Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science and compared the accuracy of entries in an professional encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Britannica) with entries in an amateur encyclopedia (Wikipedia).

This study claimed that “the professionally produced encyclopedia had three errors for every four in the amateur one” (“Error for Error”).

MORE ON THE PARTICULARS 50 pairs of articles were reviewed. The articles varied within the scientific

discipline. Reviewers were scholars not affiliated with

researchers’ organization. Reviewers were not informed of articles’

origins. Factual errors, omissions, & misleading

statements were tallied.

THE OVERALL RESULTS?

•Wikipedia articles were found to have 162 errors.

•Encyclopedia Britannica articles were found to have 123 errors.

What are the IMPLICATIONS of this study’s findings?

STOP & THINK

How do you think others reacted to this study’s findings? Some points-of-view to consider:

WikipediaEncyclopedia Britannica

general public

*Take a minute and chat with someone nearby on this issue!

BRITANNICA’S REACTIONS Claimed that articles reviewed were NOT

from Encyclopedia Britannica Accused researchers of purposely

rearranging and recombining articles and parts of articles

Contended that minor mistakes were not separated from major mistakes

Pointed out that the original title of the study “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds” is contradictory to the results of the study

RESEARCHERS’ REACTIONS Contacted Britannica to discuss the findings

of the study at its conclusion prior to publishing

Gave Britannica full disclosure of their research methodology

Sent Britannica partial copies of article reviewers’ reports

Turned over the list of errors to Britannica Revealed the identity of some of the article

reviewers to Britannica Responded to their complaints in a timely

fashion without getting any response

THE OVERALL OUTCOME?

Researchers Encyclopedia Britannica

“We do not intend to retract our article.”

Retract this article.

STOP & THINK What are the long range implications of

this study? How might collaborative encyclopedias

be influenced by the findings of this study?

How might professional encyclopedias be impacted by this study’s findings?

Does this study have ramifications for editors and copyeditors? If so, what are they?

*Answer these questions with your table mates!! Be prepared to

share!

WORKS CITED“Criticism of Wikipedia.” Wikipedia. 7 Apr. 2009. 7 Apr.

2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_criticism>.“Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response.”

Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science. 23 Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009. < http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf>.

“Error for Error.” The Atlantic Monthly. (Apr. 2006): 42. “Fatally Flawed.” Nature: International Weekly Journal of

Science. Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf>.

“Point-by-Point Rebutta” Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science. Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nature.com/

nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf>.