Wikipedia is an international Web-based free-content encyclopedia. It exists as a wiki, a website that allows visitors to edit its content. The word 'wikipedia' is a portmanteau of 'wiki' ("fast" in Hawaiian) and 'encyclopedia'. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing articles to be changed by anyone with access to the website.
The project began on January 29, 2001 as a complement to the expert-written (and now defunct) Nupedia, and is now operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has more than 4,600,000 articles in many languages, including more than 1,200,000 in the English-language version. There are over 200 language editions of Wikipedia, fourteen of which have more than 50,000 articles each. The German-language edition has been distributed on DVD-ROM, and there are also proposals for an English DVD or paper edition. Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity,[1] and has spawned several sister projects. Wikipedia is ranked in the top 20 most visited websites.
Being written collaboratively by volunteers, and allowing articles to be changed by anyone with access, raises questions about the accuracy of the content. There have been some
high-profile inaccuracies - especially some that bordered on libel. This begs the question, should a reader believe content found in Wikipedia?
Nature magazine
recently conducted a head-to-head competition between Wikipedia and Britannica, having experts compare
some science-related articles. The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
The result was that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3. However, some critics point out that error rate should be calculated on word count, rather than article count. Articles are not all the same length. Toward that end, a pair of Wikipedians
dug a little deeper and discovered that the Wikipedia articles in the sample were, on average, 2.6 times longer than Britannica's - meaning Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica's." I'll do the math for you: Wikipedia's error rate was 0.062 per 1000 words; Britannica's error rate was double that of Wikipedia - 0.123 per 1000 words.
As one would expect, Encyclopedia Britannica responded with a lengthy rebuttal. After all, Britannica's stock in trade is not its content, but rather its reliability. If its reliability is held in low regard, then there is no market for what is on the shelves. Because Wikipedia's inventory is free to all, its commitment to reliability is not market-driven. Some of the finest works of art are not for sale at any price. Many superior ideas, and even superior 'products' can be used without cash or other remunerative items being exchanged.
An example of that is - Microsoft's software products, including its shining star, Windows. Step outside of the Microsoft campus, and you won't find an honest person who will credit Microsoft with any semblance of quality. Microsoft's products are always the most expensive in their market, and Microsoft manages to acheive phenomenal profits regularly. Yet it is known for a legendary lack of real commitment to quality.
Compare that with - Open Source Software, which is usually (but not always) free, in terms of currency. Open Source operating systems - such as LINUX - for server computers long ago grabbed parts of the market share primacy from Microsoft. LINUX's quality is superior in terms of being bug-free and secure (not vulnerable to Internet attacks). And, of course, LINUX is free.
- Beyond the operating systems, and into the world that is real to the everyday computer user, the thousands of Open Source (software) programs are largely free AND high-quality. Every Microsoft product has several free, high quality 'competitors"
My point? Microsoft's products are the grandest example of products which seem to be market-driven. Open Source products depend on the goals of the authors and on peer review. Few Open Source products are written with an expectation of 'market acceptance' and financial reward. Therefore market forces do not apply when comparing quality in the world of information.
That puts Britannica in a tough spot. It has to appear extremely accurate AND it has to portray Wikipedia as extremely unaccurate. Every time someone uses Wikipedia and is satisifed, it's a blow to Britannica's future. The only way to rescue its image is to throw rocks at the little guys. That's a very risky gamble.
'Tis quite a tempest in that mere teapot.
My personal preference: I root for underdogs, as long as the underdogs are worthy. At this point, I'll put my trust in Wikipedia as a starting point in research. However, as Ronald Reagan said: "Trust, but verify." So Wikipedia has a way to go before it rises to the level of being my end-point in research. Meanwhile, Britannica lost me years ago.