Since the inception of Wikipedia, there have been mixed feelings about the accuracy of the information they provide. Wikipedia was brought along by the world of internet and thrived out of the fact that people prefer checking up information online as opposed to taking a hard copy journal and reading.
Credibility Issues According to Reviews
People generally take a bit of time to adjust to new technology, and for that reason, they tend to look for weaknesses to throw it out. However, for Wikipedia, numerous reports had portrayed the site as inaccurate and erroneous with credible evidence. As much as the founder, Jimmy Wales, tried to explain and justify its reliability, the facts kept proving that the press was right.
Before Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica had been the standard of information on everything. With Wikipedia in the picture, people wondered which of the two was reliable. A journal known as Nature did a study to clear the air and see how credible each of them are. For that study, Nature sought experts in the relevant fields and shared articles from both sites with them without revealing which one came from where.
In their findings, Nature found errors in both publications, and the margin was quite small. As much as people wanted to believe that one is better than the other, this study showed that the margin between the difference in accuracy is minimal. Neither of them was perfect. In recent years, Wikipedia has continued to thrive but not without regular blows to the credibility of the contributors.
Wikipedia Vs. Encyclopedia Britannica
Like any other site that provides information, everything published on Wikipedia may not be 100% accurate. The site is prone to errors and false information due to its way of editing. Wikipedia allows its readers to suggest edits, which could be both a positive and a negative thing. Although Wikipedia is said to verify the information before publishing, sometimes malicious edits find their way online and stay up for long without being noticed.
The kind of editing that Wikipedia uses ensures regular updates to information. For Britannica, they only do professional editing, which leaves very little room for errors but may not be as up to date as Wikipedia.
Over time, Wikipedia has accumulated over 6 million articles. Britannica may not afford to compete with a site that crowd-sources its materials, but their level of credibility will always be higher than that of Wikipedia. If Britannica managed to beat Wikipediaâ€™s numbers, maintaining the accuracy they https://www.princeton.edu/~ies/IES_Essays/E191.pdf have, they would be a much better source of information for everyone.
Academics steer clear of Wikipedia due to the fear of using information that is not so reliable, but they say it is a good starting point for any kind of research. All you need to do is consult an expert before using the information.