Wikipedia Vs. Britannica: The Encyclopaedia War

Sourced from: tecchile.blogspot.com/2007_07_23_archive.html

Researching for relevant information on assignments is part and parcel of the lives of college students. As a student myself, I am constantly surfing the Internet to access the many articles available on the web. One of the first sites I usually refer to is Wikipedia, the haven for all students in crisis.

A wiki is a website which ‘allows anyone who visits to quickly add, delete or edit its contents’ (Lamb 2006). Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, the most popular wiki available on the web. It ranks in at 37 on the list of most visited sites, according to research engine Alexa.com. Most people turn to the Wikipedia for their main source of information, as there are a wide range of topics available on the site. The Encyclopaedia Britannica on the other hand, is recognised to be a prominent source for accurate and credible information. Instead of being open to all members of public for contribution and editing, this encyclopaedia is updated by professionals and qualified editors (Terdiman 2005).

The Issue

In the year 2005, Wikipedia was made the target of media scrutiny, when its credibility was thrown into question. An article was released on the site involving an American journalist, John Seigenthaler with the murder of John and Robert Kennedy (Cauchi 2005). The inaccuracy of the article sparked outrage. The credibility war between these two encyclopaedias then began with the scientific journal Nature, which decided to conduct a study on the content of both encyclopaedias. For the study, 42 articles were taken from both the sites – “one from each site on a given topic”- and reviewed by a field of experts (Terdiman 2005).

The Verdict

Sourced from: http://www.readbangkokpost.com/images/verdict.jpg

Major problems with concepts: Both sites had a record of four errors each.

Minor inaccuracies: The average science article in Wikipedia had four whereas Britannica had three.

Other mistakes: Factual errors, omissions or misleading statements were more obvious in Wikipedia with 162 in that site and 123 in Britannica (Cauchi 2005).

Although Britannica emerged as the victor, its counterpart Wikipedia was not far off shot.

Summation

Although Wikipedia has endured heavy criticism by many, it still remains as a popular site to seek information. Its user friendly language adheres to the needs of the people. Lannon (2006) explains that most people expect to understand a document after reading it just once. Excessive details put them off, therefore concise and layman terms as on Wikipedia, draws them back to the site. Besides that, Wikipedia also provides many hyperlinks to other sites related to a particular article. As Nielsen & Morkes (1997) say, hyperlinks will add to the credibility of a site and this is important as users do not want to be fed with false information. It is evident that Wikipedia will continue to be used by many and hopefully in the near future will gain the recognition it deserves.

Reference

1. Cauchi, S 2005, ‘Online encyclopaedias put to the test’, The Age, 15 December, viewed 11 June 2008, <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html>.

2. Lamb, GM 2006, ‘Online Wikipedia is not Britannica but its close’, The Christian Monitor, 5 January, viewed 11 June 2008, <http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0105/p13s02-stct.html>.

3. Lannon, JM 2006, Technical Communication, 10th edn, Pearson Education, USA.

4. Morkes, J & Nielsen, J 1997, 'Concise, Scannable and Objective: How To Write For The Web', Useit.com, viewed 11 June 2008, <http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html>.

5. Terdiman, D 2005, ‘Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica’, CNET News.com, viewed 11 June 2008, <http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html>.