197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 652:
Line 652: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 20:09, July 31, 2007
, 20:09, July 31, 2007→65 Findings of Bias
::::: The famous, widely publicized comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in ''Nature'' in 2005 missed the most important measure of an encyclopedia: its ability to educate in an efficient manner. While the publicized report claimed that Wikipedia was superior to the Britannica in terms of accuracy, in fact there is no question that Britannica is infinitely better than Wikipedia in its educational value. But that news report, which bordered on defamation, ignored that key measuring standard and as a result destroyed the Encyclopedia Britannica. The loss is everone's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: The famous, widely publicized comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in ''Nature'' in 2005 missed the most important measure of an encyclopedia: its ability to educate in an efficient manner. While the publicized report claimed that Wikipedia was superior to the Britannica in terms of accuracy, in fact there is no question that Britannica is infinitely better than Wikipedia in its educational value. But that news report, which bordered on defamation, ignored that key measuring standard and as a result destroyed the Encyclopedia Britannica. The loss is everone's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Actually, the report found that Britannica was more accurate, as everyone expected it would be. The surprise was that they were realitively close. Of course, the study looked at specific articles in a specific field; it was hardly very broad or comprehensive. And the accuracy of the study itself has been criticized. This, however, does start to address the ''real'' problems of Wikipedia, not the "it's nothing but porn and rock bands" fallacy. I'm sure Britannica is more accurate; the advantages of Wikipedia are that it's free and it has many more articles. Additionally, some believe that Wikipedia's longer (on the average) articles cover more information, and are therefore better. Of course, this is highly debatable, and I tend to disagree, in many cases at least. Sometimes more is better. To pick a random article, I'd say the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_book the Domesday Book] is better than [[Domesday Book|the one here]]. It has more information, and if it's more than someone needs, they can stop reading after the first couple paragraphs. And lest anyone in a glass house strat throwing stones, Conservapedia has articles from the way too "[[George VI|concise]]" to the [[USS Achernar (AKA-53)|overly wordy]]. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
<small>"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse."</small> Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --<font color="#0001CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAE">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
<small>"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse."</small> Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --<font color="#0001CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAE">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)