Wikipedia:External peer review/RSR
Reference Services Review (2008)
- Source: Reference Services Review
- Date: 2008
- Issue: vol. 26, no. 1
- Title: Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles
- URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=6D46A9381C4560FE3E2565C7FDBD8A83?contentType=Article&contentId=1674221
A comparison of Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online
Findings
Summary: "The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations."
"All the facts are verifiable and correct; the difference here lay in the facts included." Comparisons were made difficult by the varied focus of the articles, but Britannica Online's article was the most extensive.
Wikipedia and DAH have more comprehensive articles than Britannica, though the Wikipedia and DAH articles have different focuses. Though the Wikipedia article has more unverifiable facts (eight) and inaccuracies (nine) than does DAH, it still holds a higher ratio of accuracy because it includes more facts than other sources. The Wikipedia entry is "relatively succinct and tightly written". The last paragraph discussing Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance contains quotes without attribution. Quotes from Theodore Roosevelt and Sinclair Lewis are also unattributed.
Overview: The Wikipedia article is poorly written in places and not as comprehensive as Britannica. Encarta "lacks the detail offered in the Wiki piece".
Quotes:
- "Largely sound on the facts"
- "a marked deterioration towards the end"
- "leaves out the prominent theme of the Bismarck cult that flowered after his departure from office"
Overview: Wikipedia article judged best. Encarta is "extremely superficial"; Britannica is "polished and factually correct although ... less richly detailed".
Quotes:
- "clearer" and "more elegant" [writing than Otto Von Bismarck]
- a few recent studies are missing from the bibliography
- Military and technical details are ... well handled
Overview: Wikipedia "performs well", Britannica "fares poorly", and Encarta "earns the Dunce's Cap".
Quotes:
- of more benefit to the serious student than its Encarta and Britannica equivalents
- "the layman may find too much information"
Overview: Wikipedia article broadly accurate, but messy. Britannica's entry "contained an error in its opening paragraph", "too long for most people's needs", and "reminded me of one of my worst lectures at university". Encarta "clearly written by an expert" and "the only one to display enthusiasm for the subject".
Quotes:
- good for the bare facts but didn't read particularly well
- "slightly messy description of outer Earth layering, which reappears elsewhere in the text, suggesting a lack of decent editing"
Response
None yet. violet/riga (t) 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
With plate tectonics being a featured article I think we need to at least review the issues raised here. violet/riga (t) 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC) It's changed a lot since this version. Over 800 edits.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)