Wikipedia Study Proved Encyclopedia’s AccuracyAdded: Saturday, August 11th, 2012
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
A Wikipedia-sponsored “pilot study” has praised the accuracy of the most popular free Internet encyclopedia and claimed that it’s better than Britannica. By the way, if you write a page on Wikipedia about yourself, one of its editors will delete it for being advertising. Nevertheless, when Wikipedia commissioned a study into itself and reported that it was wonderful, this was considered normal.
8 moths ago, the Wikimedia Foundation enlisted the e-learning company Epic and the experts from Oxford University to conduct the first organized look at online encyclopedia’s accuracy. Previously, a 2005 report by Nature revealed that Wikipedia had at least 4 mistakes per article, while Encyclopedia Britannica had 3.
The new results claimed that Wikipedia articles both scored higher in each of 3 languages, and fared well in categories of accuracy, references, and overall judgement. Moreover, the report insisted that there were almost no differences between the Britannica and Wikipedia on style and overall quality score, while in reality everyone understands that the Britannica articles weren’t penned by a person with a crayon, like some of the Wikipedia articles seem to have been.
Epic’s press release also claims that Wikipedia articles emerge commendably, pointing out that one of Wikipedia’s advantages is that its articles were more often updated than other articles, plus they were generally considered to be better referenced. In addition, the free online encyclopedia’s articles appeared to be at least as strong as other sources in terms of comprehensiveness, lack of bias and readability.
August 11th,2012Posted by:
Saturday, August 11th, 2012
|posted by (2012-08-12 02:17:09)|
|posted by (2012-08-12 10:14:50)|
|Wow...a Wikipedia sponsered study found that Wikipedia is better than Britanica. Who could have predicted that?|
|posted by (2012-08-12 10:48:19)|
|So they decided To Conduct a study on them self with people they got them self like Dexxa12 said|
Who could have predicted the out come and yet they say if you write a page on Wikipedia about
yourself, one of its editors will delete it for being advertising and there not doing that by doing a
study on them self?
|If you write a page on Wikipedia about yourself, one of its editors may delete it for being advertising. There are plenty that manage to keep their page when they should not.|
It is only one of the problems, having said that I have a subscription to the Britannica and I do not use it as the Wikipedia is better and much more detailed.
|posted by (2012-08-12 18:46:55)|
|You people do understand the Wikipedia is owned by Socialists, run by Socialists and edited by Socialists. There are many, many Wikipedia entries that have no political slant because it has no purpose. Any political entries, however, always have a liberal slant because that is just how Wikipedia rolls.|
|posted by (2012-08-13 09:46:13)|
|What the hootin-heck is an 'Encyclopedia’? Is it anything like an encyclopaedia? OK, a douche-bag comment - but is taking a little time to check your spelling so hard? Can't someone think of the children?|
|To Kint1; Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia are both correct spelling and mean exactly the same thing. I suggest you research before you comment.||
Most Popular Stories