collaborative encyclopedias : unreliable tool?
DESCRIPTION
Collaborative encyclopedias : Unreliable tool?. Danelle Jordan Application & Practice English 483. Stop & think. Do you trust collaborative search tools such as Wikipedia ? Why or why not?. You’re not alone…. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
COLLABORATIVE
ENCYCLOPEDIAS:
UNRELIABLE TOOL?
Danelle Jordan Application & Practice
English 483
STOP & THINK
Do you trust collaborative search tools such as Wikipedia?
Why or why not?
YOU’RE NOT ALONE… Those who are internet savvy have
numerous misgivings concerning sites such as Wikipedia:
COMMON CRITICISMS “exposure to obvious or subtle vandalism of its
content” “attempts by strongly opinionated editors to
dominate articles” “inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing
for controversial assertions in articles” “edit wars and other types of nonconstructive
conflict among editors” “criticism of Wikipedia taken as personal
attacks upon it”**Ironically, these criticisms are discussed in depth in an article on Wikipedia that is “in” Wikipedia.
YET THE QUESTION MUST BE ASKED:
Are collaborative encyclopedias such as Wikipedia
significantly less reliable than other more reputable search tools
such as Encyclopedia Britannica?
LET’S FIND OUT!!
RESEARCH INDICATES… A controversial study entitled “Internet
Encyclopedias Go Head to Head” was published in 2005 in the journal Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science and compared the accuracy of entries in an professional encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Britannica) with entries in an amateur encyclopedia (Wikipedia).
This study claimed that “the professionally produced encyclopedia had three errors for every four in the amateur one” (“Error for Error”).
MORE ON THE PARTICULARS 50 pairs of articles were reviewed. The articles varied within the scientific
discipline. Reviewers were scholars not affiliated with
researchers’ organization. Reviewers were not informed of articles’
origins. Factual errors, omissions, & misleading
statements were tallied.
THE OVERALL RESULTS?
•Wikipedia articles were found to have 162 errors.
•Encyclopedia Britannica articles were found to have 123 errors.
What are the IMPLICATIONS of this study’s findings?
STOP & THINK
How do you think others reacted to this study’s findings? Some points-of-view to consider:
WikipediaEncyclopedia Britannica
general public
*Take a minute and chat with someone nearby on this issue!
BRITANNICA’S REACTIONS Claimed that articles reviewed were NOT
from Encyclopedia Britannica Accused researchers of purposely
rearranging and recombining articles and parts of articles
Contended that minor mistakes were not separated from major mistakes
Pointed out that the original title of the study “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds” is contradictory to the results of the study
RESEARCHERS’ REACTIONS Contacted Britannica to discuss the findings
of the study at its conclusion prior to publishing
Gave Britannica full disclosure of their research methodology
Sent Britannica partial copies of article reviewers’ reports
Turned over the list of errors to Britannica Revealed the identity of some of the article
reviewers to Britannica Responded to their complaints in a timely
fashion without getting any response
THE OVERALL OUTCOME?
Researchers Encyclopedia Britannica
“We do not intend to retract our article.”
Retract this article.
STOP & THINK What are the long range implications of
this study? How might collaborative encyclopedias
be influenced by the findings of this study?
How might professional encyclopedias be impacted by this study’s findings?
Does this study have ramifications for editors and copyeditors? If so, what are they?
*Answer these questions with your table mates!! Be prepared to
share!
WORKS CITED“Criticism of Wikipedia.” Wikipedia. 7 Apr. 2009. 7 Apr.
2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_criticism>.“Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response.”
Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science. 23 Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009. < http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf>.
“Error for Error.” The Atlantic Monthly. (Apr. 2006): 42. “Fatally Flawed.” Nature: International Weekly Journal of
Science. Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf>.
“Point-by-Point Rebutta” Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science. Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nature.com/
nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf>.