# Nature: Wikipedia close to Britannica in accuracy of its science articles **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 14, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622 "2005-12-14T19:42:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/1 "2005-12-14T19:42:15Z")
[http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html) > [@](#): > > The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three. > [@](#): > > Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/2 "2005-12-15T14:55:20Z")
I expected more (some) comments, Wikipedia’s accuracy seems to be a hot topic around here. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/3 "2005-12-15T16:04:54Z")
I’m quite baffled by the use of Wiki as a reference. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the articles are on the whole 98% accurate. Fine for most purposes, if you want to know the population of Indiana or the name of Lincoln’s vice presidents, I’m sure you’ll be fine. What I have an issue with is the lack of control- if you update an article you could, by accident or design, make it less accurate. At least with conventional encyclopedias, you have some editorial accountability and controlled updating. Here you have none, so while it is useful it’s not in my opinion authoritative. There is a site, [about.com](http://about.com), that appears to be of a similar nature. How is its reliability relative to Wiki? [Here’s an article on about.com that is dead wrong.](http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082100a.htm) Are there similar articles in Wiki? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/4 "2005-12-15T16:16:07Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m quite baffled by the use of Wiki as a reference. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the articles are on the whole 98% accurate. Fine for most purposes, if you want to know the population of Indiana or the name of Lincoln’s vice presidents, I’m sure you’ll be fine. What I have an issue with is the lack of control- if you update an article you could, by accident or design, make it less accurate. At least with conventional encyclopedias, you have some editorial accountability and controlled updating. Here you have none, so while it is useful it’s not in my opinion authoritative. > > There is a site, [about.com](http://about.com), that appears to be of a similar nature. How is its reliability relative to Wiki? [Here’s an article on about.com that is dead wrong.](http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082100a.htm) Are there similar articles in Wiki? What keeps Wiki free is editability and free, easy access. It’s instantly accesssible, easily searchable and far, far, far more comprehensive across a broad range of information than any other reference. Nothing even comes close. If you tighten editing and input controls beyond a certain point content addition will fall off. Where is the balance point? ---
**Author:** ![bouv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@bouv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bouv)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/5 "2005-12-15T16:18:49Z")
Well, I notice the accuracy was only in regard to sciecne articles. i think a lot of the innacuracies on wikipedia are from non-science articles, especialyl articels on people. I mean, there’s not really a reason to change on article on nuclear fusion because you personally think that it’s the wave of the future and will sovle all our problems. Not really a big ussue. However, it’s probably much more tempting to change an article about Geroge W. to say he is the worst/best president there ever was. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/6 "2005-12-15T16:19:38Z")
> [@astro](#): > > What keeps Wiki free is editability and free, easy access. It’s instantly accesssible, easily searchable and far, far, far more comprehensive across a broad range of information than any other reference. Nothing even comes close. > > If you tighten editing and input controls beyond a certain point content addition will fall off. Where is the balance point? Good question. The trouble is, what keeps someone from adding an article as stupid as the one I linked to in [about.com](http://about.com)? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/7 "2005-12-15T16:45:22Z")
Nothing. Just like nothing stops you from removing something, once you see it is not accurate. I call it a strength, you call it a weakness. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/8 "2005-12-15T17:16:36Z")
Are there any cases where people of opposing views keep editing each other’s take on a topic? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/9 "2005-12-15T17:25:56Z")
I seem to recall something along that line with Israel v.”Those poor oppressed Palestinians” However, the sysmods generally take notice when such a war of words occurs, and switch things back the right way once people vandalize pages to state opinions as fact. As per my above prejudice. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/10 "2005-12-15T17:45:48Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Are there any cases where people of opposing views keep editing each other’s take on a topic? Yeah, they’re called edit wars. Eventually the admins step in and restrict who can modify the page. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nature-wikipedia-close-to-britannica-in-accuracy-of-its-science-articles/335622/11 "2005-12-16T23:54:28Z")
Well, it’s hard _not_ to be accurate about nature. You can’t go around accusing plants of assasinating JFK and moving to Russia.