Encyclopedia vs. Wikipedia
It has been said that Wikipedia is actually more accurate than the Encyclopedia. How can this be? Isn’t Wikipedia just an error and bias filled ersatz for the real, true, objective Encyclopedias? According to the science journal Nature, Wikipedia is just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Forty-two pairs of entries from each source were reviewed by relevant experts for factual errors, critical omissions and misleading statements. The results were very close: 4 major errors for each source, and 162 minor problems in Wikipedia vs. Britannica’s 123.
One advantage that Wikipedia has over Britannica is that it can be edited by numerous reviewers ranging from novices to experts, the idea being that corporately, they can input the correct information and fix each other’s mistakes. Each article in Britannica on the other hand, is written by very few experts.
Another advantage that Wikipedia has is the number of entries. Wikipedia covers far more information and many more topics than its paper bound cousin. It can also include new information almost instantly, whereas it takes years for today’s headlines to come out in an encyclopedia.
For more information on whether or not to trust wikipedia, check out this excerpt of an article from Brittanica itself: On Trusting Wikipedia
