Instructify

If you are on a computer, and visiting a blog like Instructify, you probably already know something about Wikipedia. But what exactly do you know? You may think it’s like an encyclopedia, but not as accurate–”Hey, if my 10 year old nephew can add to it, how good can it be?”

Well, it depends on who you ask — for example, academics rate it higher than lay people, while scientists at Nature.com and the folks at Britannica differ on which resource is more accurate.

While Wikipedia is used like an encyclopedia, it has some fundamental differences. Encyclopedias have articles written and edited by experts. However, they have their own set of problems and inaccuracies (see here). When comparing the two, people often come in with the assumption that encyclopedias are “accurate.”

Wikipedia’s weakness is that any yahoo as well as any expert can edit it. What about when it works? Its strength is that it undergoes constant evolution and that can lead to more and better information, not just vandalism. Click on the picture above to see a timelapse video (sped up) of the first 24 hours of edits on the Wikipedia page on the July 7, 2005 London Train Bombings. People are adding more information, correcting information, and making it better. Think about that conceptually and the often static nature of encyclopedias, and you begin to wrap your brain around how it ends up being so useful and more up to date than other resources.

Big thanks to ars techica for the great articles on Wikipedia and, Mathew Needleman for the video. -ALICE MERCER

Experts rate Wikipedia’s accuracy higher than non-experts

Wikipedia founder: “don’t cite”

Britannica begs to differ on Wikipedia’s accuracy

Video timeline - Wikipedia: London Train Bombings

Related Stuff:

Google Knol: a new Wikipedia?

Instructifeature: Five Tips to Improve Students’ Information Evaluation