A lot of angst has been suffered in recent weeks over Jimmy Wales is probably spewing hundreds of "I told you so's") thanks to the highly-regarded journal , which released a study noting that Wikipedia is about as accurate as Brittanica. According to Nature article, several Britannica staffers argue that Wikipedia entries are often poorly written and structured, but
Michael Twidale, an information scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says that Wikipedia's strongest suit is the speed at which it can updated, a factor not considered by Nature's reviewers. "People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica," Twidale adds. "Print encyclopaedias are often set up as the gold standards of information quality against which the failings of faster or cheaper resources can be compared. These findings remind us that we have an 18-carat standard, not a 24-carat one."I can't wait to hear the anti-Wikipedia backlash, especially from those looking to file a Shel Holtz is principal of a shel of my former self
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!