Thursday, March 15, 2018

Wikipedia as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica



"Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature."


 

=




Instructions:  
Read the article linked above.  Answer the following questions in a comment below.  

  1. Does this study change your opinion of Wikipedia as a source?  Why or why not?
  2. Notice the year that the article on the study (above) was published; do you think Wikipedia has become more or less accurate since then?  Why?
  3. Summarize what Wikipedia says about itself in terms of reliability:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Do not repeat what others have already said.  Contribute your own relevant, unique viewpoint.

30 comments:

  1. 1. I never thought wikipedia was a reliable source because anybody can publish to it.
    2. It has probably not changed any because they still allow whoever to publish.
    3. Wikipedia has a significant number of "errors".

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. It changed how I thought about it because i didn't know it was accurate.
    2. I think it has become more accurate because the editors have not allowed people to write things that aren't true anymore.
    3. Wikipedia has told us that the source is reliable because it has the same number of errors as Britannica.
    -noelle

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. This study changed how I thought of Wikipedia as a source because I use to think that it was unreliable, but it is actually a very reliable source.
    2. I think that Wikipedia has become more accurate over time because they have had the chance to find better ways to get rid of false information.
    3. Wikipedia's reliability has been statistically tested and it is as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. Since they are as very similar to Britannica, they have also had around the same number of "serious errors". Most of the errors on Wikipedia are fixed so quickly that no one even sees the false information. Just as some information is fixed quickly some false information has been able to stay on the Wikipedia site for months.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1.) The study doesn't change the way I feel about Wikipedia because , like stated, most if not all of their topics are "anonymously written".
    2.) I honestly think that Wikipedia has become less accurate since 2005 because the publisher compared Britannica to Wikipedia which are two of the most used websites for information today. It also states that there are errors throughout Wikipedia.
    3.) It states that the reliability of Wikipedia has been tested statistically and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia. It also says that because Wikipedia is open to the public anonymously, assessments are often examined to scan false or misleading information which, if found, is removed.
    ~Fancy

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. This study does change my opinion on whether Wikipedia is a reliable source. It changes it in a positive way because I used to think that Wikipedia was not a reliable source to use at all. Based on the article, I now know that even though it may have some errors, it does cover a broad amount of usable information.
    2. I think that Wikipedia has become more accurate over time because the Nature article examined it and said that the errors included "omissions" and "misleading statements". These errors were minor and people continue to study Wikipedia for continued errors. This is why I believed it has gotten better over they years.

    3. The reliability of Wikipedia is judged based on appropriateness of images, information, as well as "susceptibility to, and exclusion and removal of false information." This means that if false or misleading information is found, it is removed quickly. This increases the reliability of Wikipedia. It has had time to improve and renew itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (The latest post on March 3rd was from Candace Johnson

      Delete
  8. 1. Yes, this study changes the way I view Wikipedia because I was always told that Wikipedia was inaccurate. This article says that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as one of the most trusted sources.

    2. I believe Wikipedia has become more accurate in the past fourteen years because they are always looking for a way to make their website better.

    3. The reliability of Wikipedia is judged on three things appropriate images, correct information, and removal of false information. Most false information is removed quickly before anyone notices. Other times it is left alone for everyone to see. Wikipedia is reliable source because it has high standards ,and it removes false information.

    -Cole Riley

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1.) Yes, the study did change my opinion on Wikipedia because it showed that it was almost as reliable as Britannica.
    2.) I feel like they are always becoming more accurate with new information coming out and better updates.
    3.) Wikipedia says that they try their best to remove false information. It also says that they are judged on a few different things like correct information and the removal of false information. I feel like they do a good job at keeping up with what is right and wrong and remove the wrong as soon as the see it.

    -Alyssa Garner

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. This study greatly changed how I viewed Wikipedia. It changed because the study revealed how hard it actually was to put in false information into their servers. This makes it one of the most accurate websites.

    2. I believe Wikipedia should have became more accurate over the past years. I believe this because there policies most likely have became stricter than past policies.

    3. Wikipedia says that they try to remove false information. It also says that they are judged on a few different things so they will focus on those things such as removal of false information and having correct information.
    -Trevor Deason

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. No, because Wikipedia can still be altered with information that may not be accurate.
    2. The article was published in 2005. I would like to think that Wikipedia has improved their website over those years.
    3. Wikipedia stated that their website is of high standard. They stated that they remove faulty information very quickly. Although some information may not be accurate and will be accidentally left in the article.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. This study changed how I viewed Wikipedia. My view changed because the study revealed how difficult it actually is to put in false information into their servers. The restrictions that are imposed on authors is very difficult to be authenticated.

    2. I believe Wikipedia has become more accurate over the past years. I believe this because their policies has become more strict.

    3. Wikipedia stated that they try to remove false information as often as possible. It also says that they are judged on a few different things so they will focus on those things such as removal of false information and having correct information. There is strong protections from false information being put on their website so there is little false stuff now.

    -John Hunter Watkins

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. It does change my opinion because I used to think that Wikipedia was a non reliable source but when i read this article it changed my mind. Anyone can edit it so that is what made it an unreliable source but since I have learned that experts read every edit and make corrections it changes my opinion.

    2. More accurate because the CEO of the company seems to want whats best for the company so he is going to make it as reliable as possible.

    3. Wikipedia tries to remove as much false information as possible. They also say some information might not be as accurate but they try and make the best they can.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1.The study changed my thought about wikipedia.It's harder to post false information then we think it is.
    2.Wikipedia has become more advanced over the years,their rules and regulations have become more stern.
    3.Wikipedia monitors the information that is put on their websites often,and delete false information as quickly as possible.

    -Kiera Doaks

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1.) Yes, the study did change my opinion on Wikipedia because I thought it was inaccurate. The study showed that it was almost as reliable as Britannica.
    2.) I believe Wikipedia has become more accurate over the past years because their policies have become more strict.
    3.) Wikipedia says that they try their best to remove false information as soon as they see it. It also says that they are judged on how correct their information is, and the removal of false information. There are many policies and protections on the website, so I think there is very little false information.

    - Landon Dial

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1.This study had changed how I viewed Wikipedia, because I used to think that there was false information on there, but this blog says otherwise.

    2. I think that Wikipedia has become more accurate, because they have had many years to fix any problems.

    3. Wikipedia said that they were trying to remove any information that was false as soon as they could.

    -DeNiya Jones

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1.) This study has given me a new standpoint on Wikipedia. The study has made more cautious. I still believe that Wikipedia is a good source. The only difference is that I should check the information with a more reliable source before using the information.

    2.)I believe that the site has become less accurate. This is because there has been more time for more people to type different inaccurate things.

    3.)Wikipedia claims that they do everything they possibly can to remove inaccurate data as soon as they can. They have been under much ridicule fir years because of their unreliability. They try their best to change the views of these people.

    -Cole McCarty

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1.This did not change my opinion of Wikipedia because I already viewed it as a reliable source,
    2.Wikipedia has become more reliable recently because they are more strict with their policies.
    3. Wikipedia has been judged on a few different flaws so they will try to better those things, like removing false information. They have implemented strong protections on false information so there is little amount of that now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 1.It does not change my opinion on Wikipedia, because I believe Wikipedia is a very well put together site. I believe a lot of work is put into Wikipedia and it is reliable.
    2.Wikipedia has become more accurate since then because they have cracked down on their site. They enforce stricter policies to make sure their information is right.
    3. It says that Wikipedia is judged on three things appropriate images, correct information, and removal of false information, Wikipedia is trying to make itself a better website and it has taken steps to do so.
    -Bryan Fuller

    ReplyDelete