Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica,
the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a
study published this week in the journal Nature.
Over the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia, the free, open-access encyclopedia,
has taken a great deal of flak in the press for problems related to the
credibility of its authors and its general accountability.
In particular, Wikipedia has taken hits for its inclusion, for four months,
of an anonymously written article linking former
journalist John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and
John F. Kennedy. At the same time, the blogosphere was buzzing for several days
about podcasting pioneer Adam Curry's being
accused of anonymously deleting references to others' seminal work on the
technology.
In response to situations like these and others in its history, Wikipedia
founder Jimmy Wales has always maintained that the service and its community are
built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure
its articles are accurate.
Still, many critics have tried to downplay its role as a source of valid
information and have often pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of
an accurate reference.
By Daniel
Terdiman
No comments:
Post a Comment