Monday, February 2, 2009
Reading response 2
When I wrote the last response posting about Web sites with inaccurate information, the first web site that came to mind was Wikipedia. I felt that the information on the site was mostly erroneous due to the fact that anyone can contribute to the encyclopedia. The article, "Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?", actually surprized me and made me feel a little more confident about the information that I find on Wikipedia. I knew that the Web site had fact checkers looking for trolls, but knowing that they found the purposely placed mistakes within several articles in less than three hours I was amazed. I know that many people could have seen the article between within those three hours, but I thought that the time frame in finding the mistakes could take days or even weeks. Knowing this, I think that a possible solution to finding accurate information on Wikipedia could be to gather information and the next day go back to the same article to see if the facts are still on the page. If so, then it's most likely fact; and if not, it must be false. Also, they said that the articles on Wikipedia were tested to see how many facts were inaccurate compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The results were that Wikipedia had almost the same amount of error as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I thought that was odd because in high school we were encouraged to consult the Encyclopaedia, especially the well-known Britannica to check facts, and not to use Wikipedia. To know that they both have around three errors per article is eye-opening. This article makes skeptical to what information I am recieving in general, but I think it proved that Wikipedia is more accurate than believed by most.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The comments about Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia are interesting.
ReplyDeleteBritannica never thought that an open source product like Wikipedia would seriously challenge the credibility of its brand. They were wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica's staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in serious trouble.
It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools & individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and often much more comprehensive.