|
This is a sidenote, but I'm genuinely interested to know where the claim that Wikipedia is an unreliable source comes from. Do you have any base for the statement, apart from personal prejudice and grumpy Encyclopaedia Britannica workers?
The only serious done based on peer reviews that I know of does not support your claim. The study found an average of 4 minor errors pr article, where Encyclopaedia Britannica had 3 – the peer reviews were done by the magazine Nature. In total, only 8 serious errors were found, and those errors were split evenly among the two encyclopaedia - 4 to each.
No encyclopaedia is likely to be completely free of errors, and I imagine most of you will be hard pressed to find significant, egregious errors in Wikipedia that has been allowed to stay uncontested. One could be so impertinent to claim that the very fact that Wikipedia allows public contest of the neutrality of its articles automatically makes it more reliable than, for example, Encyclopaedia Britannica, where most would be unable to even pinpoint whichever facts were being disputed.
|