Encylopaedia Britannica is wrong, and Wikipedia can prove it

The ongoing debate over which is more reliable – Encyclopaedia Britannica or Wikipedia – is sure to turn more volatile now that Wikipedia has published a full page entry citing dozens of errors its editors have located in the 2005 version of EB. According to Wikipedia, EB editors have flubbed birthdays of famous figures in history including that of Joseph Stalin's, incorrectly defined mathematical terms including that of "real numbers", and they have muddled the distinction between hip hop music and rap music. Oh, and Frank Zappa was never christened "Francis", as EB says. 

In all, Wikipedia identifies dozens of EB errors in the fields of history, science, mathematics, language and linguistics and a hodge-podge miscellaneous called "other topics" that covers geographical locations and recent historical points. And, while they're at it, Wikipedia has a bone to pick with EB's claim as "largest" English-language encyclopaedia.  "If Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia is accepted, then this statement is erroneous because Wikipedia contains more words and articles than Britannica," Wikipedia retorts.

The veracity of Wikipedia has been under question since its inception. An encyclopedia that the masses can edit surely leads to self-serving edits and the occasional outright mistruth, goes the claim. But Wikipedia scored an important credibility victory in 2005 when Nature said Wikipedia is nearly as accurate as EB, a claim that EB called "fatally flawed" and the debate dragged on, with little resolution.

EB, as Wikipedia is demonstrating now, missed the point a year ago. It's not an issue of who is more accurate, but rather that both contain inaccuracies. The best encyclopaedia is one that is open to edits and corrections.

Comments

[Matt]

Wikipedia is possibly one of the best inventions of this century - before it, what were we left with? Microsoft Encarta, with a "Premium" web version that cost extra. As far as I remember, the digital version of Britannica was hardly given a thought.

Give me wiki any day.

[Ian Kemmish]

The words "pot" "kettle" and "black" spring immediately to mind. If this statistic had come up as part of an exercise in reconciling Wikipedia with more reliable sources, then fair enough. But to undertake it as a PR exercise pure and simple, plainly announces to the world that they have no interest in the utility of their own product. I have been using Wikipedia because I'm lazy, but having seen this nonsense I think I'll try harder to find alternate sources in future.

One is driven to wonder how many inaccuracies there are in their own list of other people's inaccuracies....

[pfvll@homecall.co.uk]

I use Wiki very guardedly.

I have referred to entries on the (very few!) subjects I know well and have found errors in most of them - but the entries as a whole would be informative for those, not familiar with the subject, wanting a quick overview. And Wiki is quick and convenient when already on line.

In contrast, entries on the same subjects in EB have been accurate.

[Andrew Upton]

PFVLL: "I have referred to entries on the (very few!) subjects I know well and have found errors in most of them"

The point with Wikipedia is that, where you find errors on subjects that you know well, you are encouraged to correct them yourself to the benefit of the next person who comes along ! (ie Not just think "That's wrong" and give up on it.)