Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source)

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source)” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

******************************************
ABSTRACT: Lloyd Carroll of the Chemed-L list, in a post “Useful for students to read - Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source,” wrote (paraphrasing): “I plan to require that my students read Messer-Kruse’s (2012) “The ‘Undue Weight’of Truth on Wikipedia,” wherein he shows that new discoveries may be slow in coming to Wikipedia, especially if they are controversial.”

But the same can be said of Encyclopedia Britannica and is not necessarily a reason for non-citing of either encyclopedia. "In Defense of Wikipedia" [Hake (2009)] I wrote: "Those who dismiss Wikipedia entries as a mere 'opinion pieces,' may not be aware that a study by Nature [Giles (2005)] indicated that Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries. . . . . . Nature's claim of comparable accuracy of scientific entries in Britannica and Wikipedia was disputed by Britannica (2006), but Nature's initial formal response [Nature 2006a), an editorial Nature (2006b), and point-by-point rebuttal [Nature (2006c] suggest that Nature's claim was correct.
******************************************

To access the complete 7 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/zHmOEm.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake


REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 17 Feb 2012.]
Giles, J. 2005. “Special Report - Internet encyclopaedias go head to head - Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.” Nature 438: 900-901, 15 December; online as a 508 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/xERbDe.

Hake, R.R. 2012. Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source); online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/zHmOEm. Post of 17 Feb 2012 17:07:4-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Messer-Kruse, T. 2012. "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 Feb, online at http://bit.ly/zUka0c