Wikipedia-Sponsored Pilot Study Lauds Wikipedia Accuracy 125
netbuzz writes "The Wikimedia Foundation today is releasing the results of a 'pilot study' it commissioned last year to assess the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia in such a way that it would provide a methodology blueprint for others do more thorough reviews of online encyclopedias. The results are in, and despite ready acknowledgment of the small sample size and paragraphs worth of other caveats, the parents of Wikipedia can't help but note that its baby was judged to have outperformed other online encyclopedias, including Encyclopedia Britannica, in three different languages. Britannica, which disputed the Wikipedia-friendly results of a much-cited Fortune comparison report back in 2005, has yet to offer a reply to this one."
Re:The quality and accuracy of some articles is gr (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I would say that on articles that have attracted enough attention to have multiple knowledgeable editors, quality is quite good. Exceptions for some rough spots in very hot-button areas, like Israel-Palestine, where sometimes editors with the wrong motives are attracted.
What I like compared to Britannica is that it's less likely there will be a whopper of an omission in a high-profile article. Some Britannica articles, especially on science/math topics, just have really puzzling stuff missing, or stated incorrectly, while those tend to get found on Wikipedia.
Of course, they're a bit biased with their list, but a few smug Wikipedians actually maintain a list of Britannica errors that Wikipedia has fixed [wikipedia.org].
Re:Oil industry report says oil industry great (Score:4, Interesting)
If companies want an honest opinion about their product (whether it is for PR or for competitive analysis), they should hire a third party. This third party should go and hire the research firm, with the research firm not knowing who the customer is, and the customer not knowing who the researcher is.
It's things like this (Score:2, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_megadrive [wikipedia.org]
This redirects to Sega Genesis, even though it was only known as this in North America.
However, a vote took place on what to call it and as a result of this vote, it's referred to as the Genesis, which is wrong.
It crap like this that makes me wonder what other facts have been altered.