Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles

Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical... Purpose – This paper seeks to provide reference librarians and faculty with evidence regarding the comprehensiveness and accuracy of Wikipedia articles compared with respected reference resources. Design/methodology/approach – This content analysis evaluated nine Wikipedia articles against comparable articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica , The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online in order to compare Wikipedia 's comprehensiveness and accuracy. The researcher used a modification of a stratified random sampling and a purposive sampling to identify a variety of historical entries and compared each text in terms of depth, accuracy, and detail. Findings – The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia 's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95‐96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations. Research limitations/implications – More research must be undertaken to analyze Wikipedia entries in other disciplines in order to judge the source's accuracy and overall quality. This paper also shows the need for analysis of Wikipedia articles' histories and editing process. Practical implications – This research provides a methodology for further content analysis of Wikipedia articles. Originality/value – Although generalizations cannot be made from this paper alone, the paper provides empirical data to support concerns regarding the accuracy and authoritativeness of Wikipedia . http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Reference Services Review Emerald Publishing

Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles

Reference Services Review, Volume 36 (1): 16 – Feb 15, 2008

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/comparison-of-wikipedia-and-other-encyclopedias-for-accuracy-breadth-0fmnGW2PY1
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0090-7324
DOI
10.1108/00907320810851998
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to provide reference librarians and faculty with evidence regarding the comprehensiveness and accuracy of Wikipedia articles compared with respected reference resources. Design/methodology/approach – This content analysis evaluated nine Wikipedia articles against comparable articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica , The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online in order to compare Wikipedia 's comprehensiveness and accuracy. The researcher used a modification of a stratified random sampling and a purposive sampling to identify a variety of historical entries and compared each text in terms of depth, accuracy, and detail. Findings – The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia 's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95‐96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations. Research limitations/implications – More research must be undertaken to analyze Wikipedia entries in other disciplines in order to judge the source's accuracy and overall quality. This paper also shows the need for analysis of Wikipedia articles' histories and editing process. Practical implications – This research provides a methodology for further content analysis of Wikipedia articles. Originality/value – Although generalizations cannot be made from this paper alone, the paper provides empirical data to support concerns regarding the accuracy and authoritativeness of Wikipedia .

Journal

Reference Services ReviewEmerald Publishing

Published: Feb 15, 2008

Keywords: Reference services; Encyclopaedias

References

  • Evaluating authoritative sources using social networks: an insight from Wikipedia
    Korfiatis, N.T.; Poulos, M.; Bokos, G.
  • Quantifying the accuracy of relational statements in Wikipedia : a methodology
    Weaver, G.; Strickland, B.; Crane, C.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off