Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
After reading this article, I am more shocked that the founders of Wikipedia are not making or currently trying to make a ton of money, than that Wiki is almost as accurate as encyclopedia Britannica. Accuracy in numbers. I also found it amusing that editors of Britannica such as Tom Panelas, claim that they have nothing against Wikipedia. But how can that be, Wikipedia is a direct threat to their business and their jobs
Fatally Floawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature
This article is simply PR. Spinning an article to make Britannica look good and Wikipedia and Nature’s study, look bad and inaccurate. Britannica claims, that not only was Nature’s claims about Britannica’s inaccurate articles wrong, but that Nature examined articles in Britannica that were not even in the encyclopedia. Other flaws in Nature’s report Britannica points out are: That the headline is misleading, that Nature said Britannica omitted information but really Nature just never saw the rest of the article, and that nature failed to distinguish minor inaccuracies from major ones. When researching a product, it is very important to read both sides of the story. One can not just take Nature’s word as fact, it is also important to look at the rebuttal from the product’s company. Literate consuming!
The article about Wikipedia on Wikipedia is very informative about Wikipedia. I think it is unbelievable that is funded by donations and run by volunteers. I also think it is incredible that it has six million articles. Even if Wiki is not as accurate as other sources, it is a great jumping off point in research, or just everyday information that is desired.
The fact that Wikipedia’s own article on Wikipedia has a paragraph on its flaws, shows that though not accurate, bias is avoided, as a result of everybody being able to add and edit articles.