Wikipedia or Britannica?

Source: Wikipedia & Webtraderuk.org

As a student, I often use the internet for doing research and gaining information for my course. Wikipedia used to be one of my favourite sources in the internet until I was informed by my lectures that it is not encouraging to use the site. By then, I have move on to use Britannica.

The point that I am bringing up in this post is whether Wikipedia or Britannica is a better source. According to Terdiman (2005) in ZDNet News, a study that has been published in a journal, Nature stated that Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica where the information gain in Wikipedia is as precise as the information gain in Britannica. However, Wikipedia has faces some problems when an anonymously written article linked to former journalist, John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy (Terdiman 2005). The article further stated that at the same time that the problem above occurred, the blogosphere was buzzing for several days about podcasting pioneer Adam Curry. It is mention that Adam Curry was being accused of anonymously deleting references to other’s seminal work on the technology.

By responding to those problems, the Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales stated that he has always maintained that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature in order to ensure its articles are accurate (Terdiman 2005). Furthermore, Jimmy Wales explains his plans to bar anonymously users from creating new articles whereby only registered members are allowed to do so (Terdiman 2005). Thus, information in Wikipedia will be more reliable as for new articles posted could not be done by anyone and the management of Wikipedia will be able to track the writer down.

Nevertheless, based on a study done by Nature, in every article from Britannica, there are 2.92 mistakes in average found (Terdiman 2005). As for Wikipedia, there are 3.86 mistakes in average found in an article according to the same source as above. Overall, it is stated in the same article where there are 123 problems found in Britannica and 162 problems found in Wikipedia.

Being a student, we always hope for the best and we usually search for information which is reliable. According to Morkes and Nielsen (1997), credibility is an important issue on the web. Both authors further states that people do not want to be fed with false facts.

Generally, people think that the information from Britannica is more reliable than Wikipedia due to those information from Britannica are peer-reviewed. Conversely, the research done on both Wikipedia and Britannica by Nature prove otherwise. Thus, Wikipedia is still usable for students’ research. However, to ensure that the information in Wikipedia is reliable, students are advice to search for more legitimate sources to support the findings from Wikipedia (Srinagesh 2006).

References

Morkes, J. & Nielsen, J. 1997, ‘Concise, scannable, and objective: How to write for the web’, useit.com, viewed on 10th June 2008 at http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html.

Srinagesh, S. 2006, ‘Perspective: teen’s warning on the gospel of Wikipedia’, CNet, viewed on 10th June 2008 at http://news.cnet.com/Teens-warning-on-the-gospel-of-Wikipedia/2010-1038_3-6104446.html?tag=item.

Terdiman, D. 2005, ‘Growing pains for Wikipedia’, ZDNet, viewed on 10th June 2008 at http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595-5981119.html.

Terdiman, D. 2005, ‘Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica’, ZDNet, viewed on 10th June 2008 at http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588-5997332.html.