Wikipedia:External peer review/RSR
Reference Services Review (2008)[edit]
- 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[edit]
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.
- Unfortunately, the author failed to notice that Wikipedia did (and still does) have separate articles on Badlands and Badlands National Park; as a result, her comparison was flawed, since she did look at paired articles in two of the other three encyclopedias. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia again has a much higher proportion of unverifiable (three) and factual errors (six) than does either DAH (two incorrect) or Britannica (one incorrect)"
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.
"Wikipedia has a single fact error – the number of party representatives in Congress after the 1848 election. Additionally, Wikipedia contains a quote apparently from the party’s platform with no attribution."
"Although all of the entries are brief, there are still disputable facts; Wikipedia has the most with four unverifiable facts and three containing errors ..."
"Despite the disparity in length and depth of the two articles, the Wikipedia entry has only one fewer incorrect fact that DAH and has one more unverifiable fact. Still, the Wikipedia article has a rather long direct quote in the last paragraph of the John Brown section without attribution, and the one citation included in that section does not accurately reflect the original source (the Wikipedia entry lists a different date than the original)."
"this entry in Wikipedia is written so that small skirmishes have more prominence than major battles (and some major battles were missing entirely), and readers may have difficulty determining the chronology of the war without reference to specific dates because the entry did not sequence events in chronological order. Unlike the other two samples evaluated, this entry obviously is written by multiple authors with little apparent concern for the overall flow and readability of the article."
"Many of these details in Wikipedia are either incorrect (14) or unverifiable (37) as compared to the four unverified facts in DAH and the three partially incorrect facts in the two Britannicas. For example, the Wikipedia article includes several details of Kidd’s childhood that were not confirmed in three principal biographies (Harris, 2002; Ritchie, 1986; Zacks, 2002), and the essay suggests he turned to piracy before most of the biographers indicate. One paragraph of the essay references a children’s book on Kidd, which may oversimplify the man’s career."
"Wikipedia’s entry follows ANB in terms of length and comprehensiveness; it includes 67 facts. All except two are verifiable. Of the remaining 65, ten contain errors. Some of these are minor errors, such as year of birth and number of siblings; others are more significant, such as the number of rescue attempts she made and the number of slaves she helped escaped."
Additional overall comments:
- "Eight Wikipedia articles contain unattributed quotes and at least five cases of possibly plagiarized content (material found verbatim elsewhere). The researcher found these cases easily without intense scrutiny; more text may have been copied."
- "One area of further study may be to examine and evaluate Wikipedia’s histories themselves. In the brief review of the more detailed history of the Mexican-American War, for instance, this study found that references were deleted and correct facts were modified incorrectly. Also, it would appear that some inaccuracies may have been typing errors. A more detailed study of individual histories may lead to deeper analysis as to the nature of Wikipedia’s contributors."
Response[edit]
None that I have seen. Mangostar (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)