Wikipedia vs. Britannica?

Do you think Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is as accurate and up to date as Britannica? Or, stated another way, is collective knowledge = paid editors?

As I was reviewing material for my class on Wikis tomorrow, I ran across this in an article by Karl Kapp, Embracing Informal Learning: Understanding the tools of informal learning and their impact on organizations. On page 8 he shares this:

The British journal Nature—a reputable scientific journal first published
in 1869—published a peer-reviewed article examining a range of scientific entries in both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia through a rigorous peer review process and found few differences in accuracy. "The average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three [21]." The researchers found eight serious errors such as misinterpretations of important concepts in 42 reviews, there were four such errors found in each encyclopedia. Additionally, the reviewers found factual errors, omissions or
misleading statements in both. Wikipedia had 162 of these types of errors. The Encyclopedia Britannica had 123.

Essentially, the accuracy of the paper-based encyclopedia created by
paid editors and researchers was about the same as the collective encyclopedia created by visitors to the Wikipedia site—volunteer writers and editors [22] The implication? Collective knowledge is as accurate, reliable and helpful as edited and carefully reviewed knowledge. The openness of Wikipedia and wikis in general
helps to ensure accuracy. When a person browsing the site sees something they believe is wrong, they update it. The openness of the information ensures its accuracy. The concept of freedom of the press taken to the nth degree and it works.

It got me thinking. Am I telling my students to only trust people who are well paid to share information?

Just Sayin'
Lee Anne

Will Wikipedia Last?

I was reading a blog post by George Siemens last week on his Connectivism blog titled Wikipedia and Google: Control vs. Emergence, and in light of the many, many conversations I've had this summer with Eighth Floor participants regarding the integrity of Wikipedia, I shared the blog post with several people in recent classes. One participant, Dana Sterling, wrote back. I love her passion, and you will too. I've been bugging her to start a blog, maybe if I share her comments here, she will be inspired!

The issue is kind of beside the one this writer is getting at. Academics worry that people are using Wikipedia and not understanding the quick and dirty, amateurish nature of the entries. This is where Britannica differs from Wikipedia. With ritannica, the entries are vetted and peer reviewed ahead of time. Like traditional academic journals and the journalism publications. Same editing and verification process, just taken to the web.

With Wikipedia, that process happens out in the open, in real time, in a kind of democratic way. That appeals to the grass roots activist, mistrustful of the mass media reader. I'm sure you have seen the student journalist criticism when Emory banned Wikipedia as an academic reference.

So I believe Britannica and Wikipedia are more different than he makes it seem. Though it is true that they are alike in that they are allowing the few to make information decisions for the many.

Google is indeed giving you everything, in one big shovel, and not sorting it at all. But he drastically underplays the impact of advertising and the desire to make money on Google searches. The hits are weighted by frequency and by sponsorship. They are not neutral either; far from it. And the China issue -- Google is willing to play ball with the Thought Police in order to make money. This deeply, deeply disturbs me. Yahoo is too.

Journalists and librarians believe in THE EDITOR! Someone has to make sense of the information, weigh it for authority and objectivity. No average consumer or student has the time to do that. It's an incredibly valuable function. It's not sinister. But the media have blown it and the people don't trust us. They think we are biased. We did it to ourselves by embracing opinion journalism instead of clinging to objectivity as a professional value.

See, this was a blog post. I gotta get one for my academic side!
Thanks for the link.

Dana

Dana spent the summer on the Eighth Floor in the Online Learning Series. I find many of her "takes" on things to be interesting, and as I said before, passionate. Dana spent 20 years as a newspaper journalist and TV reporter and now teaches journalism and writing at ORU and TCC.

I appreciate Dana's willingness to share her thoughts. If anyone else is interested in contributing to the Eighth Floor blog, just let me know!

Thanks!
Lee Anne