The Wikipedia Battle Begins!

(Picture sourced from: http://www.inkycircus.com/)
(Picture sourced from: Blogspot.com)

Encyclopedia Britannica is facing a stiff test of credibility of information in the battle against the new fangled site Wikipedia. Founded on the basis of 'By the community for the community', Wikipedia is leading the way for those who are looking for a quick fix of information and are looking for an alternative other than the usual Encyclopedia Britannica. What attracts users is the fact that unlike the Encyclopedia, actually allows Internet users to change what they want, when they want it. Good or bad? You decide.

In an article published by Cnet, it reports of a study conducted by online journal Nature where they chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts. All in all, in terms of of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123. Not a bad figure for a user-defined blog.

According to a The Age article, Wikipedia is the 37th most-visited website. It has added 3.7 million articles written by tens of thousands of volunteers since it was founded in 2001. It is a concept that seems to be widely accepted by the online community where being able to change information at the touch of a keyboard (by anyone nonetheless) is an enticing prospect considering the vast clarification needed for all the information posted. And in terms of vandalism, that aspect doesn't seem to be a problem. For example, in a report written by Robert Johnson for The New York Times, he speaks of an instance where renown Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleyev wikipage was posted with this idiotic message: "IM COOL: IM DOING A REPORT ON DMITRI MENDELEEV AND YEA IM COOL AND HES COOL." However, three days later the graffiti was removed by other civil minded users.

And that's where lies Wikipedia's cutting edge tool: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, in an interview with USA Today says that Wikipedia's team of dedicated volunteers will provide their knowledge and expertise on the field that they're in command of.

I feel that in terms of garnering credibility and recognition among scholars in terms of reliability, Wikipedia still has a long way to be on level ground with luminaries like The Encyclopedia Britannica which for decades has been the focal point for academic referencing. This is reflected in Universities and Colleges where the usage of Wikipedia as a citable academic source is prohibited. As Lannon (2006) puts it, information accuracy and credibility is what makes a useful website.

And with Encyclopedia Britannica upgrading itself by offering expert contributors and readers to supplement the contents, seems like a whole new level of battleground is just teeming up.

We wait with bated breath.

Reference List:

1) Cnet News, Viewed on 10 June 2008 at
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

2) Britannica Follows In Wikipedia’s Footsteps (Sort Of…), Pandia, Viewed on 10 June 2008 at
http://www.pandia.com/sew/672-britannica-follows-in-wikipedias-footsteps.html

3) Online Encyclopedias Put To The Test, The Age, Viewed on 10 June 2008 at
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html

4) Lannon, J 2006, 'Technical Communication', 10th Edition, Pearson Education, USA

5) Nature: Wikipedia Is Accurate, USA Today, Viewed on 10 June 2008 at
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm

6) The Nitpicking Of The Masses Vs. The Authority Of The Experts, New York Times, Viewed on 11 June 2008 at
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03comm.html