• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Jesus watching the most hateful people claiming to be his followers

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Cancel the cowardly Times and Post and set up an equivalent monthly donation to ProPublica.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

Mediocre white men think RFK Jr’s pathetic midlife crisis is inspirational. The bar is set so low for them, it’s subterranean.

People identifying as christian while ignoring christ and his teachings is a strange thing indeed.

Bark louder, little dog.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

Everybody saw this coming.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Science & Technology / The Accuracy of Wikipedia

The Accuracy of Wikipedia

by John Cole|  December 15, 200512:06 pm| 18 Comments

This post is in: Science & Technology

FacebookTweetEmail

This is an interesting development for online collective information-gathering:

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday’s article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

As someone who uses Wikipedia a great deal, this is both reassuring and yet still provides me with ample reason to doublecheck Wikipedia entries before linking them. All in all, though, a win for the ffort, I would say.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Revolutionary
Next Post: An Open Letter to Pranksters »

Reader Interactions

18Comments

  1. 1.

    Toni Trammal

    December 15, 2005 at 12:21 pm

    This is good news, indeed, since many of the younger generation swear by it. My daughter even has wikipedia as the start page for her browser. Now I can breathe easier.

  2. 2.

    SomeCallMeTim

    December 15, 2005 at 12:22 pm

    Love, love, love the Interweb and the wierd cryto-libertarian socialists that drive its culture. Life today is often truly teh awesome.

  3. 3.

    Kimmitt

    December 15, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    Wiki’s really really good on the science articles, and is a great starting point for settled history. Current events stuff is generally decent, but it improves with the number of contributors.

  4. 4.

    Steve S

    December 15, 2005 at 1:14 pm

    Wikipedia does work for science, and for historical stuff from long long ago.

    Anything dealing with current events or modern history is often times inaccurate and riddled with biased nuttery.

  5. 5.

    Doug

    December 15, 2005 at 1:33 pm

    Like any encyclopedia, it’s a great starting point but ought not be relied upon as gospel.

  6. 6.

    Marcus Wellby

    December 15, 2005 at 1:47 pm

    I still prefer my circa 1978 edition of Worldbook. Plagiarized many a grade school essay out of those pages.

  7. 7.

    Krista

    December 15, 2005 at 1:47 pm

    One thing I do like about it is the links to other topics. You often find yourself just randomly looking stuff up that catches your eye — a good way to learn new things. Reminds me of leafing through the old set of World Book encyclopedia on rainy days when I was a kid.

  8. 8.

    Mr.Ortiz

    December 15, 2005 at 1:48 pm

    It was pointed out on another site (Slashdot, I believe) that Wikipedia entries are usually much longer than Britannica’s. If that’s because they’re more in-depth (as opposed to just wordier), then Wikipedia may actually have a LOWER error rate, even with more errors.

  9. 9.

    Marcus Wellby

    December 15, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    a good way to learn new things. Reminds me of leafing through the old set of World Book encyclopedia on rainy days when I was a kid.

    Ha! And I thought I was the only nerd here :)

  10. 10.

    John Cole

    December 15, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    And I thought I was the only nerd here

    You thought you were the ONLY nerd in a comments section of a relatively small weblog?

    Heh.

  11. 11.

    Krista

    December 15, 2005 at 2:35 pm

    We’re ALL nerds here. Every last one of us. Embrace it.

  12. 12.

    Paul Wartenberg

    December 15, 2005 at 3:30 pm

    I work as a librarian. We are starting to get college students wondering about using Wiki as a resource. My answer, to them and to anyone else who uses Wiki, is: check other sources as well. It helps to have different resources on the same topic, just in case one is inaccurate it will allow you to spot the discrepancy and find out which is the correct resource to rely on.

    By the by, I contribute to Wikipedia (if you’re interested to know, I’ve worked on the Gunfight at the OK Corral, Ike Clanton and Doc Holliday entries, the Tarpon Springs, Florida entry, the City of Heroes entry, and the film entries for Sahara (1943 film) and Bull Durham. Most of what I submitted stayed in, with a few edits, and the photos to any of those sites came from others…), so I am well aware of how the information can be edited within seconds, and of the quality of work on various entries. It’s a good starting point to find info, but I would not rely on it as an end-all be-all resource.

    The thing upsetting me though: Britannica has errors?! Ack!

  13. 13.

    Anderson

    December 15, 2005 at 5:07 pm

    What Paul said. This isn’t good news for Wiki, it’s terrible news for Britannica.

    I mean, how’s this for a sales slogan:

    “About as accurate as anonymous stuff posted free on the Internet!”

  14. 14.

    Paul Wartenberg

    December 15, 2005 at 5:24 pm

    As long as imdb.com stays accurate, we’ll be fine.

    I still can’t believe the imdb people took my X-Files/Men In Black fanfic story seriously… (it was based on a rumor David Duchovny was going to star in the MIB sequel, and so imdb picked up on it, and when it turned out to be false I got blamed for it, oh man…)

  15. 15.

    Vlad

    December 16, 2005 at 8:17 am

    I write for Wikipedia, under my real name. Mostly bios of old-time or obscure baseball players, but some other stuff as well.

  16. 16.

    Laurila

    December 16, 2005 at 8:47 am

    If one wants to be nice, one can surely assert that Wikipedia is more reliable than what’s written by average journalists.

    A problem with Wikipedia is that it’s too inviting to cock-sure buth lesser knowing individuals, regardless of if they have “good” or “bad” intentions (whatever that now would be), and also too inviting to determined manipulators.

    It’s also a lot easier to know how to interpret and understand a text when you can make yourself a picture of the writer’s general point of view. With Wikipedia articles you can do so only exceptionally.

  17. 17.

    Kiganshee

    December 16, 2005 at 6:10 pm

    This links to some articles on wikipedia’s accuracy…. as compared to the encyclopledia britannica.

    Wikipedia’s model is working, and it will only get more comprehensive as time goes on.

  18. 18.

    Rembrandt

    December 20, 2005 at 12:03 am

    Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s model is NOT working, as witnessed by the fact that Wikipedia itself is changing how it operates.

    By the way, this entire thread misrepresents the actual findings of the Science study. What the study found was that Wikipedia was AT TIMES close to Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy — and at times not. That’s not particularly good news for a reference work.

    Certainly some of Wikipedia is accurate, but vast parts of it are complete crap — at best benignly inaccurate and incomplete, and at worst malicious libel.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - BarcaChicago  - Off the Gunflint Trail/Boundary Waters 6
Image by BarcaChicago (7/7/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • gene108 on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 4:17pm)
  • Citizen Alan on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 4:17pm)
  • Eyeroller on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 4:15pm)
  • Fair Economist on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 4:14pm)
  • gene108 on Open Thread: BRICS-A-Bracket (Jul 7, 2025 @ 4:13pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!