— blending the mix

Wikipedia study fatally flawed

The BBC reports on a war of words between [tag]Encyclopaedia Britannica[/tag] (EB) and nature magazine which claimed that the free wikipedia resource was as accurate as any publication by EB.

Is this a case of a traditional retailer not adapting to the times and getting hacked off that [tag]Nature[/tag] has rumbled them for charging for something you can find on the net for free, or do they have a point…

…and I think that they may be right.

EB say:

Is it not inveitable that where different nationalities and indivuduals combine to create a definition, that different terms will be used? Is it not inevitable that one person’s understanding of a topic within a subject will have a slightly different turn of phrase than another?

I think so.

BUT, to what degree do Wikipedia users use the resource for unequivocally-correct information? Not an awful lot I bet…and this is where EB can capitalise.

[tag]Wikipedia[/tag] is a great resource which in principle works well, but as a fairly frequent user it is always at the back of my mind that this is another interested individuals’ words, not the work of a company whose very existence relies on the accuracyof its work.

That said, if tests can prove Wikipedia is as accurate as EB, then clearly the EB have some strategic work to do!

Submit comment