Comparing Wikipedia and Britannica

In this week 's "Nature" magazine, there is a news article that attempted to discover how reliable our reporter compares the scientific content of Wikipedia with the scientific content of the UK.

They sent fifty pairs of articles on scientific topics in Wikipedia and the UK to famous experts, but did not tell which articles came from which sources and made mistakes (errors, misleading Description or omission) was counted. In 42 replies, the content of Britannica was less than the average 3 errors per article, but the Wikipedia errors were less than the average 4 errors - probably not the difference most people expected. There are also properties attached to editorials.

We also took the opportunity to interview this in another week when we visited Jimmy Wales. You can listen to the results on natural podcasts on 15th December 2005.

Through the outcome of the subject-specific topic, I get 22-10 support for the final score or Britannica, 10 draws. Britannica's total number of errors is 123, and the total number of errors in Wikipedia is 162 (hence the error will be 30% more than traditional competing products).

Of course, this covers only scientific content and does not take into account all aspects of the value of encyclopedia (eg timeliness, depth, reference quality), but this is less stringent It helps complement anecdotal information. It seems that it has promoted the discussion about Wikipedia so far.

If you think that the encyclopedia should be judged by its weakest entry (generally I do not), or if you are wrong or a troublesome subject (Thank you, I am far from famous You are more important than the average result. But most readers just want to know if they can generally rely on sources. What these results mean to me is that Wikipedia is not bad in this regard - and if it is true that your facts are very important, even in the UK it is not entirely reliable. Combined with the fact that Wikipedia is generating content that is orders of magnitude lower than traditional encyclopedias, we can put the classic Kristenseesk break into the reference publication.

The important question is whether Wikipedia outperforms the Britannica Encyclopedia's quality. Obviously already in some subjects, I think the answer is yes, but I have to wait and see. Frankly, I still can not overcome the fact that it is totally effective.

Ironically, this is why there is a problem with the position of Britannica's encyclopedia in the market for primary school and students. Compared to Wikipedia, the Britannica brand is clearly an adult and a scholar. However, the vacuum left by Encarta's interruption needs to make it easier to market students and junior versions (this is an integral part of the Ultimate Edition, not an option). Nonetheless, the 2017 version of Student and Elementary Encyclopedia has improved coverage and equipment. And how to write a document about the topic of writing a review. There are learning games and activities as well. Hundreds of fun and interactive games and activities to help students learn mathematics, science, social studies and other subjects.

In 2008, President Hamlet Isakhanli, founder of Hazard University, compared the articles of EncyclopædiaBritannica and English Wikipedia with the topics related to Azerbaijan. According to his survey, Wikipedia covers this topic more broadly, more accurately, and in more detail. And despite some imbalance, Wikipedia is the best information source for the first approximation. Some academic journals refer to Wikipedia articles, but they are not upgraded to the same level as conventional references. For example, articles in Wikipedia are cited in "Enhanced Perspectives" that is provided online by Science magazine. The first viewpoint to provide Wikipedia hyperlinks is "white-collar protein-aware Blu-ray", and since then dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links.