1 / 14

Collaborative encyclopedias : Unreliable tool?

Collaborative encyclopedias : Unreliable tool?. Danelle Jordan Application & Practice English 483. Stop & think. Do you trust collaborative search tools such as Wikipedia ? Why or why not?. You’re not alone….

adamma
Télécharger la présentation

Collaborative encyclopedias : Unreliable tool?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Collaborative encyclopedias: Unreliable tool? Danelle Jordan Application & Practice English 483

  2. Stop & think • Do you trust collaborative search tools such as Wikipedia? • Why or why not?

  3. You’re not alone… • Those who are internet savvy have numerous misgivings concerning sites such as Wikipedia:

  4. Common criticisms • “exposure to obvious or subtle vandalism of its content” • “attempts by strongly opinionated editors to dominate articles” • “inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing for controversial assertions in articles” • “edit wars and other types of nonconstructive conflict among editors” • “criticism of Wikipedia taken as personal attacks upon it” **Ironically, these criticisms are discussed in depth in an article on Wikipedia that is “in” Wikipedia.

  5. Yet the question must be asked: Are collaborative encyclopedias such as Wikipedia significantly less reliable than other more reputable search tools such as Encyclopedia Britannica? LET’S FIND OUT!!

  6. Research indicates… • A controversial study entitled “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head” was published in 2005 in the journal Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science and compared the accuracy of entries in an professional encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Britannica) with entries in an amateur encyclopedia (Wikipedia). • This study claimed that “the professionally produced encyclopedia had three errors for every four in the amateur one” (“Error for Error”).

  7. More on the particulars • 50 pairs of articles were reviewed. • The articles varied within the scientific discipline. • Reviewers were scholars not affiliated with researchers’ organization. • Reviewers were not informed of articles’ origins. • Factual errors, omissions, & misleading statements were tallied. THE OVERALL RESULTS?

  8. Encyclopedia Britannica articles were found to have 123 errors. Wikipedia articles were found to have 162 errors. What are the IMPLICATIONS of this study’s findings?

  9. Stop & think • How do you think others reacted to this study’s findings? Some points-of-view to consider: Wikipedia Encyclopedia Britannica general public *Take a minute and chat with someone nearby on this issue!

  10. Britannica’s Reactions • Claimed that articles reviewed were NOT from Encyclopedia Britannica • Accused researchers of purposelyrearranging and recombining articles and parts of articles • Contended that minor mistakes were not separated from major mistakes • Pointed out that the original title of the study “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds” is contradictory to the results of the study

  11. Researchers’ reactions • Contacted Britannica to discuss the findings of the study at its conclusion prior to publishing • Gave Britannica full disclosure of their research methodology • Sent Britannica partial copies of article reviewers’ reports • Turned over the list of errors to Britannica • Revealed the identity of some of the article reviewers to Britannica • Responded to their complaints in a timely fashion without getting any response

  12. The overall outcome? • “We do not intend to retract our article.” • Retract this article. Researchers Encyclopedia Britannica

  13. Stop & think • What are the long range implications of this study? • How might collaborative encyclopedias be influenced by the findings of this study? • How might professional encyclopedias be impacted by this study’s findings? • Does this study have ramifications for editors and copyeditors? If so, what are they? *Answer these questions with your table mates!! Be prepared to share!

  14. Works cited “Criticism of Wikipedia.” Wikipedia. 7 Apr. 2009. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_criticism>. “Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response.” Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science. 23 Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009. < http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica _response.pdf>. “Error for Error.” The Atlantic Monthly. (Apr. 2006): 42. “Fatally Flawed.” Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science. Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://corporate.britannica. com/britannica_nature_response.pdf>. “Point-by-Point Rebutta” Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science. Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nature.com/ nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf>.

More Related