1. Introduction
The popularity of online encyclopaedias as a source of information has increased tremendously in the past two decades. However, the issue of the quality and accuracy of the information available in online encyclopaedias remains one of debate. This is particularly the case in those encyclopaedias available on the internet which do not charge users to access information. There has, however, been much discussion about the accuracy of information available in 'free' online encyclopaedias, which do not pay contributors and editors a fee but instead rely on voluntary contributions from persons who regard themselves experts without formal clarification of their qualifications or a stringent process of peer-review or editing. While this characteristic facilitates rapid and free transfer of knowledge, critics argue that 'opening the editing process to all regardless of expertise means that reliability can never be ensured'[1].
According to the leading global provider of web metrics, Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the most popular online encyclopaedia and the sixth most popular website in the world[1]. It has more than 19 million articles in 270 languages. All content is freely available and approximately 13-15% of global internet users visit Wikipedia each day. Wikipedia is a collaboratively compiled and edited encyclopaedia with contributions in the form of text, pictures, formatting, citations and lists from multiple, unpaid editors and professionals. The process is regulated by means of an explanation of changes made between editors, notability guidelines and a tutorial process for new editors. Disputes about content are usually resolved by discussions between 'Wikipedians', i.e. users, contributors and editors.
In December 2005 the scientific journal Nature reported on a study they had undertaken to compare the accuracy of science entries on Wikipedia with those on the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica[2]. Unlike Wikipedia, which relies on voluntary contributors, regardless of proven mastery or qualifications, Encyclopaedia Britannica uses selected paid expert advisors and editors. At the time of the Nature study, Wikipedia comprised 3.7 million articles in 200 languages and was ranked the 37th most visited website on the internet[2].
Nature invited independent academic scientists to peer review entries (in the English language) for their particular areas of science expertise, from both Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Each scientist was asked to identify any inaccuracies and comment on the articles' quality and readability, without being aware of the source of the article. Forty-two reviews were submitted to Nature revealing on average four inaccuracies per Wikipedia article, in contrast to three per Encyclopaedia Britannica article. The general response was one of surprise, with levels of accuracy in Wikipedia being better than expected. Wikipedia articles were rated more 'poorly structured and confusing' compared to articles from Encyclopaedia Britannica, with 'undue prominence being given to controversial scientific theories'[2]. Nevertheless, for Encyclopaedia Britannica, the oldest continuously published reference work in the English language, the results were worse than
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 http://www.alexa.com (April 2012) Top Sites, [Online], Available at: http://www.alexa.com/topsites [Accessed 12/04/12].
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Giles, J. (2005) 'Internet encyclopaedias go head to head', Nature, vol.438, 15 December 2005, pp. 900-901.
9
