Springfield channel 40
Mon Jun 29 21:24:47 EDT 2009
Martin Waters wrote:
> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Donna Halper <email@example.com> wrote:
>> First, I never trust Wikipedia.
> But I saw a rumor on the internet that half of what's on Wikipedia might be true . . . :)
> Of course, then you have to apply the great unified gewneral theory that 20 percent of everything that's on the internet might be true . . .
Applying Tony Kornheiser's rule, you start out with 50-50 odds on just
about anything. :-)
So far, the studies comparing Wikipedia articles with articles on the
same topic from conventional encyclopedias have produced pretty good,
though not sterling, results for WP.
A 2005 study in "Nature" came up with a 3% error rate for assertions in
the Britannica articles it had experts review, vs. 4% for the Wikipedia
articles. On the other hand, Britannica challenged the study's
methodology. A study of several historical articles (just 9 were
sampled) came off worse for WP, with 80% accuracy (whatever that means)
vs. 95% for other sources.
OTOH, the WP articles on Star Trek trivia are probably maintained with
obsessively scrupulous accuracy.
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest