[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia compared..... again!

[Arwel Parry]

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 The info is out of date and 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about six months out of date and does not mention the use of 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/