Wikipedia Versus Britannica

Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia.
(Source: http://www.enriquedans.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/uploaded_images/encyclop-716710.png)

As a free online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is the web’s most talked-about source of information. Why is it so? Because the free-content encyclopaedia itself is not considered to be a reliable source for searching information in which millions of people are able to distribute information and edit the articles, including us. Consequently, the accuracy is open to many questions who is responsible for the content. Comparatively, Britannica is accurate and infallible. As described in the article ‘Britannica tops Wikipedia in accuracy stakes’ which was published on ZDNet.co.uk on 16 December 2005, many critics seemed to downplay the validity of Wikipedia and to consider Encyclopaedia Britannica to be ‘an example of an accurate reference’. Terdiman (2005) in the article maintained that the result of a study conducted by Nature showed that Wikipedia got 162 problems and Britannica got 123, including factual errors, omissions or misleading statements.

The findings of Nature were also provided on BBC News (2005), indicated that Wikipedia entries were unfavourably written and poorly structured by giving false information. For instance, it was reported in the article that the founding editorial director of USA Today blamed one Wikipedia entry for incorrectly naming him as ‘a suspect in the assassinations of President John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert’.

Credibility and accuracy are the most important concerns when writing for the Web. This is clarified by Morkes and Nielsen (1997) who stated that ‘when looking at a news story on the Web, one person said, “One thing I always look for is who it is coming from. Is it a reputable source? Can the source be trusted? Knowing is very important. I don’t want to be fed up with false acts”’. They also stated that Web users generally judge the Web’s credibility by looking at the quality of its content. Commenting on this issue, I would say that it is essential for Wikipedia to provide accurate information and credible content for users as ‘content is the most important element of the site’ (Reep 2006, p. 174). Even though I do not depend on Wikipedia for finding out information, but however I think Wikipedia needs to include links to other credible sources so the Web users find the Web content accurate.


References

BBC News 15 December 2005, ‘Wikipedia survives research test’, viewed 11 June 2008, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm>.

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>.

Reep, DC 2006, Technical writing: principles, strategies, and readings, 6th edn, Pearson Education, Inc., New York

Terdiman, D 2005, ‘Britannica tops Wikipedia in accuracy stakes’, ZDNet.co.uk 16 December, viewed 11 June, <http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39242334,00.htm?r=4>.