The May issue of BBC Focus magazine ("The world's best science and
technology monthly"), (
www.bbcfocusmagazine.com, but the contents are
not online) is interesting from a Wikipedia point of view. Firstly
there's a "quick chat" with Jimbo, together with a full page photo of
our benevolent god-king himself, and a three-page "Tried and Tested"
feature on online encyclopaedias - Encarta, Infoplease, Wikipedia, and
Our Favourite Other Encyclopaedia. They only compared three articles --
one for current news ("Bird flu"), one for history ("George
Stephenson"), and one for obscure facts ("Planetesimal"), and also
reviewed the usability of each site together with details of cost (if
any), number of entries, sources, and multimedia.
The usability comment for Wikipedia says "The design is a bit text-heavy
but useful "contents" tools help you navigate the articles. Links
abound, but the sheer number of them means you can soon find yourself
far adrift from your starting point. There are close to 500,000 media
files, but video and audio is restricted to the patent-free formats Ogg
Theora and Ogg Vorbis."
The Bird Flu test:
Reviewed by St Andrews University virologist Dr Richard Elliot, looking
to see whether the encyclopaedias can keep up with a fast-moving
subject.
Encarta: "Encarta has a short entry on avian flu with no details on the
scale of the ongoing H5N1 outbreak. The info is out of date and
cross-referencing is limited. The influenza entry contains a number of
errors (for example, the influenza B virus does not infect birds, as
stated here), and requires thorough revision."
EB: "Britannica online provides a short entry on bird flu that contains
the essential information but with no in-depth coverage. The material is
about six months out of date and does not mention the use of
neuraminidase inhibitors (e.g. Tamiflu) that are being stockpiled in
some countries and widely mentioned in the media."
Infoplease: "There's no specific entry for bird flu and the search
directs to a very brief entry on influenza. However we do get an FAQ
entry heavily based on World Health Organisation material from November
2005. This deals with aspects of the disease in a concise
question-answer format but the lack of cross-references limits any
in-depth analysis."
Wikipedia: "Wikipedia provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date
information with cross-references and links to original sources.
Generally the entries are accurate and suitable as an
undergraduate-level resource, but the terminology section of the H5N1
entry is both confused and contains errors, while some links did not
direct to the correct reference."
The George Stephenson test:
Broadcaster Dick Strawbridge was looking for an accurate and accessible
account of the great railway engineer.
Encarta: "If you need more than a couple of general lines you have to
subscribe to the premium content, but it's easy to read and there are
plenty of dates and facts. Reading Stephenson's obituary from The Times
of 1848 puts the man's life in historical context and some of the links
introduce facts not covered by the other online encyclopaedias."
EB: "Britannica tells a very easy-to-read story about George
Stephenson's life. It's not a comprehensive list of dates and events,
but you do get a rounded portrait of the man. Unfortunately, it reckons
Stephenson's Rocket went a lot faster than the commonly agreed 29 miles
per hour (47 kph) - which hurts when you're paying for the information."
Infoplease: "Even after following all the available links, you end up
with very little useful information here. Historical context was thin,
with no allusion to Stephenson's reputation as the "father of British
steam railways". The ads that flash on the pages would have been very
useful if I'd been looking for love. Sadly, I was after facts."
Wikipedia: "An entry that is clear, comprehensive, and full of facts.
The information is digestible, presented in chronological order, and the
most detailed of all the encyclopaedias on test. For example, it was the
only one to inform me that we can thank Mr Stephenson for the majority
of the world's railway tracks being 4' 8.5"."
The Planetesimal test:
Astronomer Dr Duncan Steel examined how an ambiguous term is handled.
"Planetesimal" is used to describe the blocks that collide to form
planets, but is also used for modern comets and asteroids.
Encarta: "The definition of 'planetesimal' is given in terms of a body
that exists early in a solar system's history. Elsewhere on the site it
says the Oort cloud, a huge sphere of comets about a lightyear from the
Sun, consists of planetesimals, and that asteroids are fragments of
planetesimals. That's fine by me, but contrary to the definition given
here."
EB: "The most authoritative entry on the subject begins with this
admirable definition: 'One of a class of hypothetical bodies that
eventually coalesced to form the planets after condensing from gaseous
matter early in the history of the solar system.' A bit technical for
the lay reader and the possible asteroid-or-comet meaning is not
covered."
Infoplease: "Planetesimals are mentioned in the context of the theory
for the origin of the Solar System. Elsewhere, things get confusing when
the term 'planetoid' is given as another synonym for 'asteroid'. Not
very useful since asteroid means 'star-like' - which fits their
appearance through a telescope, but not their physical nature."
Wikipedia: "Both possible meanings of planetesimal are given, among
various other confusing statements that contain factual errors and
punctuation outrages. But my main beef with Wikipedia is that it
contains an entry for Elbsteel, the asteroid I named for my youngest
son, but not for Arrius, the one named for my eldest. This causes
arguments at home!" [NB, actually we created an entry for "5263 Arrius"
on 12th April, so both sons should now be happy].
The Verdict:
Ratings: Infoplease 2/5; Encarta 3/5; Britannica 3/5; Wikipedia 4/5.
Wikipedia pros: Comprehensive articles with lots of detail, the most
up-to-date encyclopaedia on test, page labels help assess the quality of
the information; it's free.
Wikipedia cons: Some factual errors found; occasional slips in spelling
and grammar.
"All the encyclopaedias contained at least some errors and omissions,
reinforcing the point that they should be viewed as starting points for
your research rather than as all-encompassing fountains of knowledge.
Infoplease fared poorest in our test with very little to get your teeth
into. Encarta has a bright design and engaging multimedia options, but
was let down by a dismal performance in the 'current news' test.
Meanwhile Britannica's long history was showcased in authoritative pages
that are easy to get around. Our winner is Wikipedia which had the most
detailed articles and was best equipped to deal with the ever-changing
news about bird flu. While it was only marginally more accurate, it has
close to 10 times more articles than the next biggest, all freely
available. That means it's most likely to have what you need."
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/