What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
59 Comments
- Porsche944, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Probably because most of it is copied from Britannica.
- ryanguill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Link to original article: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
- Brightside, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just curious, why 42 articles? Is there editor of this magazine a Douglas Adams fan?
- ryanguill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What I want to know is after they found the errors in wikipedia, did they bother to fix them?
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Come to think of it, Wikipedia does beat Britannica in information about every extraneous Star Wars and Star Trek character that has ever existed and features an entry for EVERY SINGLE POKEMON.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3lol very recently a 12 tr old kid found mistakes in the latest issue of britanica earlier this year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4209575.stm
i hope this digg gets an ovious tag when it is posted to fark - febryle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What's scary to me is how inaccurate BOTH of these sources are.
- presroi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Volume 438 from 15 December 2005 page 900. The article is not yet online.
- bradspry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Citation please?
- ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love Wikipedia, but it should never be used as a sole reference for research. Instead a good article (most of the math, science, technology, and physics ones) introduce something, then point you somewhere else. Although, alot of times it is fairly accurate (I learned quaternions from Wikipedia), you should always go to a source that is more specific. But this holds true for Britannica (or others) as well. If it is a serious (university level) work, encyclopaedias are a poor poor reference.
The real beauty of Wikipedia is that because anything can be added, the breadth of material is amazing. Where else could you find a centralized source of information on diverse topics? Wiki almost anything and you get something that introduces you and/or points to other sources. Britannica can never do that. - presroi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Britannica refused to comment on the Nature findings. Their only comment was some statement about Wikipedia. They claim to have done their own review but so far, no details were given.
Tom Panelas from Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. did not spend a single word on the Britannica, which is, hmmm, interesting. - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Wow, you mean books contain errors just like things online? That's just CRAZY talk. I mean, everybody knows computers generate facts and essays automatically nowadays and PEOPLE never get involved or have an agenda. While we're at it, we should sue life, because sometimes things pretend to be things they're not, like cameleons. Damn them lizards.
Digg++ for promoting pro-wiki internet content - essrog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This story should be a big embarrassment for Britannica - especially when you consider how vulnerable Wikipedia is to sabotage. What's Brit's excuse?
- TRUEPATRIOT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2w00t go wiki!see now all they gotta do is go edit wikipedia and problem solved its not that easy to clean up britannica
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Considering the fact that probably 70% of the info in wikipedia was obtained from Britannica, this doesn't surprise me.....
- essrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"But not perfect, yet Wiki fanatics try to convince everyone that Wikipedia is problem free."
No one claims this. Troll.
Bye - jasongetsdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That article was pleasently info-light. Wouldn't want too many specific facts or references to clutter things up.
- tsmori, on 10/12/2007, -0/+142 entries seems a pretty small sample size for a Nature article. That has to be less than 0.01% of the total content of either site.
- Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On several occasions, I've seen the "self-healing" quality of Wikipedia at work. At one point, I was having an argument, and the guy pointed me to Wikipedia as a source on an argument about feminism. It was a completely non-objective article, that basically wanted to call feminists spawns of the devil. That article has been replaced. An article on any subject should be clear, and, as much as possible, objective. It can't always be when we're arguing over so much stuff. I wish they had a "rate of revision" meter to warn you -- so you could read an article and check out the main fights about that topic. A non-controversial subject would should a low rate of change, but an article about the 2000 election, for instance, should probably have a red light and alarms going off until the facts are settled -- in about 150 years.
- n8han, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised the encyclopedias "were containing similar amounts of errors." Presroi must have come across this article, you know, "today morning."
- Vertr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Goatse" :
So can you back that up? - cky3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does Britannica has an entry for "Walker, Texas Ranger"? No.. enough said.
- bndocksnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0okay, so some people are confused enough to think an encyclopedia SHOULD be used for serious research... this is a mistake. at best, an encyclopedia is a resource from which serious research (using other sources) should be mounted. as such, wikipedia has shown itself to be an excellent building block, so why continue to bedraggle it simply because you might not be aware of how to conduct research? in fact, if a person was any sort of authority (and i doubt a grade school teacher is) on the purpose of research, they would support the use of wiki or any other source in the search (notice that word?) for information. long live the wiki!!!
-bndocksnt - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"People learn stuff like Quaternions from Wikipedia think they are learning facts, but they do not recognize the subtle errors, cause they don't know any better."
Are you kidding me? This is pretty funny flame bait. Try again, jr. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"So can you back that up?"
back yours up first. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Are you kidding me? This is pretty funny flame bait. Try again, jr."
lol, do you know any better? old man. - whiterabbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My school, as of today, banned the use of Wikipedia for all research purposes. Someone will be getting an angry letter from me and the other Wikipedia users in the school soon.
- panic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nice, I hope encyclopedia brittanica has a class action lawsuit knocking on their door like wikipedia does. Wikipedia rocks. +digg
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In case anyone didn't see:
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
Please note that they only checked a specific subset of articles.
Science articles are about the ONLY thing I trust Wikipedia for. - psyonide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wikipedia is a bad idea, and no amount of zeal on the part of its drooling fanboys will make it a good one.
A public encyclopedia maintained and edited by the unwashed masses is a fine example of the blind leading the blind. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is misleading.
Nature is a scientific magazine, so I only expect that scientific articles are what was compared. When it comes to history, politics, social sciences, and other fields that Nature does not have much (or any) expertise in, I dont think they are qualified (or even bothered to) do checks on other reference categories.
I have encountered quite a bit of problems with Wikipedia's articles. It is usually mathematics and hard sciences that Wikipedia does its best job at. The controversey over Wikipedia has been over stuff other than this. - fliz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Almost a tie was 4 vs. 3 for the average error count. I know that's only 1 more for wikipedia per article, but that is a 33% increase...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The more people who use wiki's the more solid they will become. They are as reliable as society wants them to be."
The more people use Wiki, the more chaotic it will become. That's a fact.
http://www.kapitalism.net/thoughts/wikipedia.htm - dendrimer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I am so glad that there is some positive news about there for Wikipedia. News about the potential lawsuit coming their way has been getting me depressed.
- Massamune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whiterabbit,
Unfortunately, since wikipedia is not written by academics, the content is not considered peer-reviewed, at least not in the strict sense that universities and academic institutions require, so as long as wikipedia is true to its current nature, there will be no possibility of it being considered a viable research location. - awright38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The more people who use wiki's the more solid they will become. They are as reliable as society wants them to be.
- essrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"60% of stuff on wikipedia are simply copy pasted from other encyclopedias anyway."
How would you come up with that number? Especially if Wikipedia is expanding and evolving constantly?
Is that a made-up assertion, or is it a copy-paste of someone else's made-up assertion? - jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"42 entries seems a pretty small sample size for a Nature article. That has to be less than 0.01% of the total content of either site."
I agree. This is like saying I found 42 things on one car that I found on another and they remarkably similar. Therefore a Ford Taurus is almost identical as a Chevy Impala. - CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0With history especially the Wikipedia has an opportuinity to excel. When history is written by the victors AND the losers, it becomes more objective. Is it there yet? probably not. like the creator said, its' definitely a work in progress.
- shmoovio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0NPR did a story on this today, which includes an editor from Nature, talking about the study:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055388
If you care. - whiterabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Alright, maybe I'll hold off on writing that letter, but it bugs me how my school handles things. For instance my English teacher told the class that we should try to find information from .org sites because they are more reliable than .com's. I find this totally wrong because anyone can register a .org just as easily as a .com and put up bogus information. I don't use Wikipedia as the end all save all source, but the vast content is a nice back-up source. I think they should not allow Wikipedia as a primary source but not ban it completely.
- crapiolio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia is free! Free is good!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How would you come up with that number? Especially if Wikipedia is expanding and evolving constantly?"
LOL, you mean reverting back and forth constantly? - sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The question is where is the mag getting it's indomptable and absolute truth via which it can campare the two encyclopedias?
- michaelstone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whiterabbit:
Generally, at my school at least, they frequently discourage use of encyclopedias for any current topic (i.e. science or recent events), since these are often out of date anyway. I personally would encourage people to use recent peer-reviewed journals, and possibly an encyclopedia or RECENT book to supplement that as background, but knowing that it's likely the two will differ.
And although Wikipedia is generally right, you still may get the one article that someone recently vandalized, and if you have no knowledge in the subject beforehand, how would you know? The only thing better about Wikipedia is that it uses the vernacular more often, hence, it's easier to read. - supergeorgina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BOO YEAH!
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can't believe only one person so far has mentioned the unsuitability of encyclopedias for research except as introductions to the literature *they* cite.
Encyclopedias are a "source" to be "cited" no later than the 5th grade.
In high school, I was never allowed to use an encyclopedia as a "source," and in college, it wasn't something to be dignified with a discussion.
Wikipedia or Brit are *great* for an introduction to a subject, even to get a basic working knowledge of something, but by *definition* they are not suitable for "research." - michaelstone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Streetstealth, thanks for aiding my point. I've never used an encyclopedia in a citation since, maybe 6th or 7th grade. They're not really cite-worthy, since all they do is condense information that they cite.
On the topic of that "kapitalism" site, I decided to check it out in IE. Oddly, the "this is page is not compatible with IE" is false, because it worked fine. Looked the same to me. - perfect13thstep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"However, a pair of endevouring 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."
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1352207 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Wikipedia is free! Free is good!"
But not perfect, yet Wiki fanatics try to convince everyone that Wikipedia is problem free. -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is