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 The info is out of date and cross-referencing is limited.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 The material is about six months out of date and does not mention the use of neuraminidase inhibitors (e.g. Tamiflu) that are being stockpiled in some countries and widely mentioned in the media."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."