Wikipedia VS Encyclopedia Britannica - The End Of Academia
The quantity of information contained in encyclopedia hard copies extends to a couple of volumes. This picture of the bookshelf below signifies the amount of knowledge Wikipedia holds.
Many critics have tried to downplay Wikipedia's role as a source of valid information, often pointing to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.
Remarkable is the fact that not only does this user generated database of content outweigh the sheer volume of academic encyclopedia versions, but is relied upon more heavily by students for a quick and correct analysis of subjects than any other resource.
Critics have raised concerns about Wikipedia's increasing influence. They question whether multiple unpaid editors can match paid professionals for accuracy.
Answering these woes, critics studied Wikipedia and Britannica side by side, showing that it resulted with error rates of around 3.8 mistakes per article for Wikipedia and 2.9 for Britannica. This proved that both resources included similar quantities of correct information which suggests that Britannica’s advantage is not as far greater than expected. Even with this close result, the British science journal Nature review named Wikipedia inferior to Britannica.
Technically the study showed Britannica to be superior, but Wikipedia articles are on average three times longer than those of Britannica. This means that Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica. The only problem that obviously contributed to Wikipedia's lesser grading was the quality of the writing. Ironically this view is supported by Wiki co-founder Jimmy Wales when he states that "An encyclopedia can't just have a small percentage of good entries and be considered a success". The overall quality must be judged by the weakest entries rather than the best.
The technological advances that have allowed 13,000 regular volunteers, usually experts in their field, to add and alter any page on the Wikipedia site is only the natural move forward of embracing the virtual. Whether quality moves forward with technology or not is up to the commitment of individuals to support the value of academic resources.
Many critics have tried to downplay Wikipedia's role as a source of valid information, often pointing to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.
Remarkable is the fact that not only does this user generated database of content outweigh the sheer volume of academic encyclopedia versions, but is relied upon more heavily by students for a quick and correct analysis of subjects than any other resource.
Critics have raised concerns about Wikipedia's increasing influence. They question whether multiple unpaid editors can match paid professionals for accuracy.
Answering these woes, critics studied Wikipedia and Britannica side by side, showing that it resulted with error rates of around 3.8 mistakes per article for Wikipedia and 2.9 for Britannica. This proved that both resources included similar quantities of correct information which suggests that Britannica’s advantage is not as far greater than expected. Even with this close result, the British science journal Nature review named Wikipedia inferior to Britannica.
Technically the study showed Britannica to be superior, but Wikipedia articles are on average three times longer than those of Britannica. This means that Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica. The only problem that obviously contributed to Wikipedia's lesser grading was the quality of the writing. Ironically this view is supported by Wiki co-founder Jimmy Wales when he states that "An encyclopedia can't just have a small percentage of good entries and be considered a success". The overall quality must be judged by the weakest entries rather than the best.
The technological advances that have allowed 13,000 regular volunteers, usually experts in their field, to add and alter any page on the Wikipedia site is only the natural move forward of embracing the virtual. Whether quality moves forward with technology or not is up to the commitment of individuals to support the value of academic resources.
posted by Hannah at 6:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home