Page 176 - DLIS006_INFORMATION SOURCES AND SERVICES

Unit 8: Encyclopaedia

15. One of the most important advantages of online encyclopaedias is that they can be edited Notes
frequently.

Case Study Internet Encyclopaedias

nline alternatives to the Britannica include Wikipedia, a freely available Web-
based free-content encyclopaedia. A key difference between the two
Oencyclopaedias lies in article authorship. The 699 Macropaedia articles are
generally written by identified contributors, and the roughly 65,000 Micropaedia articles
are the work of the editorial staff and identified outside consultants. Thus, a Britannica
article either has known authorship or a set of possible authors (the editorial staff). With
the exception of the editorial staff, most of the Britannica’s contributors are experts in their
field—some are Nobel laureates. By contrast, the articles of Wikipedia are written by
people with varying levels of expertise: most do not claim any particular expertise, and of
those who do, many are anonymous and have no verifiable credentials. Another difference
is the pace of article change: the Britannica was published in print every few years, while
many of Wikipedia’s articles are frequently updated. Robert McHenry, paid by the
Encyclopaedia, stated that Wikipedia cannot hope to rival the Britannica in accuracy.
In 2005, the journal Nature chose articles from both websites in a wide range of topics and
sent them to what it called “relevant” field experts for peer review. The experts then
compared the competing articles—one from each site on a given topic—side by side, but
were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings
of vital concepts: four from each site. It also discovered many factual errors, omissions or
misleading statements: 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica, an average of 3.86 mistakes
per article for Wikipedia and 2.92 for Britannica. In its detailed 20-page rebuttal,
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. called Nature’s study flawed and misleading and called for
a “prompt” retraction. It noted that two of the articles in the study were taken from a
Britannica yearbook and not the encyclopaedia, and another two were from Compton’s
Encyclopaedia (called the Britannica Student Encyclopaedia on the company’s website).
The rebuttal went on to mention that some of the articles presented to reviewers were
combinations of several articles, and that other articles were merely excerpts but were
penalised for factual omissions. The company also noted that several of what Nature
called errors were minor spelling variations and those others were matters of interpretation.
Nature defended its story and declined to retract, stating that, as it was comparing Wikipedia
with the web version of Britannica, it used whatever relevant material was available on
Britannica’s website.
Interviewed in February 2009, the managing director of Britannica UK said:
Wikipedia is a fun site to use and has a lot of interesting entries on there, but their
approach wouldn’t work for Encyclopaedia Britannica. My job is to create more awareness
of our very different approaches to publishing in the public mind. They’re a chisel, we’re
a drill, and you need to have the correct tool for the job.
Questions:
1. What are the advantages and limitations of Internet Encyclopaedias?
2. Write down the case facts.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 171