Comments on: Wikipedia: The Faith-Based Encyclopedia?

By: blogs for industry

blogs for industry — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:14:45 +0000

Nature checks Wikipedia

Yesterday I posted on Wikipedia vs other web sources as a source of citations. Today brings this article in Nature comparing Wikipedia and Brittanica...
Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in th...

By: ChrisO

ChrisO — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:24:57 +0000

Kent, thanks for pointing out that article on Paul H. Smith - it was clearly a vanity article, which should never have been posted in the first place. It was contributed by an anonymous editor (probably the man himself) and nobody had touched it since. I've deleted it now.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:45:26 +0000

It is a good place to start, or can be a quick link for some basic facts, but in general I don't use it or view it as an authoritative source.

I think quality has a lot to do with the subject being researched.

By: Arwel

Arwel — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:18:17 +0000

"Nature" has done an interesting comparison of 42 science-based articles on both Wikipedia and Britannica Online (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html ). It makes interesting reading, and not much comfort for Mr McHenry, since it shows Britannica is not much more accurate than Wikipedia! "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

By: Kent

Kent — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:32:25 +0000

I have found some of the articles on the loftier reaches of mathematics and physics quite good. But I have also found some remarkably poor ones, such as the article on degenerate matter, which besides being incomplete, has some factual errors in what is said. And this in spite of the fact that the article has been edited several times. I have also seen articles that can only be described as propaganda or advertising (not that there's a huge difference.) I once found an article on a "remote viewer" (a kind of clairvoyant psychic) that could only be characterized as an advertisement for his professional services. Come to think of it, it's still there. I sometimes use Wikipedia for a quick lookup on something I already know a lot about, because I can usually spot the bunkum if it's present. I wouldn't feel very comfortable using Wikipedia for something I didn't know much about. On balance, I have to go with the sewage analogy. I have enough more to say that I should probably just go off and start working on an appropriate blorticle.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:06:07 +0000

In looking over the posts on Beyesian statistics/methods I'm actually pretty impressed. Overall, the information is pretty darned good. Of course, extrapolating from that data point to the rest of Wikipedia is inapprorpriate, but there is some good stuff in there, IMO.

By: Jay Cline

Jay Cline — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:51:34 +0000

update their information to catch up with developments--something at which Wikipedia is astonishingly adept--

I was using Wiki just this morning, reading an article on Charles Lindbergh. It had been obscenely graffitied.

I jumped to Wiki's Contact Us page, only to find very simple instructions to correct it. So I did. But a little investigation, using Wiki's tools, revealed that the perp had been making mayhem all over Wiki, and not more than a couple hours before I saw them.

So I started to track down the articles the perp had profaned, only to realize all but one other mess had already been cleaned up.

Yes, it is real easy to write graffiti on Wiki's wall. But unlike New York, it is even easier to clean up.

And there are a whole lot more of us than them.

By: M. Murcek

M. Murcek — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:34:54 +0000

The principle that applies is the Law of Ultimate Syzygy:

If you put a teaspoon of wine in a barrel of sewage, you get sewage.

If you put a teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of wine, you get sewage...