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

[Violet/Riga]

This is an excellent review, and a great find, Arwel.  This should be added
to [[Wikipedia:External peer review]], though it's a shame it's not
available online.

On 4/14/06, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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 The info is out of date and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 about six months out of date and does not mention the use of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/