Reliability Issues on Online Encyclopedias: Wikipedia vs. Britannica

Whenever the word ‘online encyclopaedia’ comes into sight, the first thing that came into mind would be Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. These two online encyclopedias are popular among the Internet users for its accessibility. Wikipedia essentially tops the Google search engine as the ‘search’ button is clicked on. The numbers of users referring to either one of these encyclopaedias are enormous as its availability is unlimited. The main reason why people keep coming back to these sites, especially Wikipedia, is mainly because they are free of charge. The difference is that an amount of money is required to be paid to view in-depth information on Encyclopedia Britannica. However, issues on online encyclopedia like Wikipedia and Britannica have often brought about on their accuracy and reliability in providing information. Experts have detected inaccuracy on a scientific article from both encyclopedias. They found 162 from Wikipedia and 123 from Britannica on issues such as “factual errors, omissions and misleading statements” in the information provided (Cauchi 2005). Information credibility provided by online encyclopaedias has often questioned by many others who are concern about the credibility of sources used in a subject matter.


Wikipedia comes from the word wikiwiki, which means ‘quick’ in Hawaiian language (Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia Founder Discusses Freedom of Speech 2006). This name matches its purpose for providing fast and easy information to users globally. It provides over 1.8 million articles in total in 200 different languages (Wikipedia Survives Research Test 2005). Ever since its existence in 2001, the web-based encyclopaedia has drawn 2.5 billion page views per month in 2006 and the number is continuing to grow as year goes by (Berinstein 2006). How credible are the information provided in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki. MediaWiki enables people to edit Wikipedia information at any time at all. This option however vacillate the reliability of any articles posted on Wikipedia. If the edited information is false, its article credibility accessed by many others will be automatically plunging down the drain without doubt.



Some users will just accept the information and end up misinterpreting it. Schriver (1997) said a person interprets information based on their knowledge, experiences, culture, feelings, social awareness and the context of a particular text. As an example of false information is the case of a 78 years old former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville, John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia provided false information on him by saying “… he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby” (Seelye 2005). In a personal point of view, Wikipedia will always remain the top source in searching for information because it is free of charge and is user-friendly in many ways. As discussed by Nielson and Morkes (1997), Internet users are seen to be judgemental in terms of a website appearance. With this, Wikipedia could maintain its credibility among Internet users.



References:




  • Schriver KA 1997, Dynamics in document design: creating texts for readers, Wiley Computer Pub., New York.




2:31 AM | |

This entry was posted on 2:31 AM You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)