Credibility of Wikipedia in comparison with Encyclopedia Britannica

NAME:
COURSE:
TUTOR:
DATE:
Credibility of Wikipedia in comparison with Encyclopedia Britannica
Studies, have wanted to compare the eminence of Wikipedia entries with that of comparable articles in Encyclopedia Britannica. Partly as a consequence of the outcomes of such researches, Wikipedia has initiated a number of procedures for evaluating the quality of its entries, welcoming readers and editors to rate entries conferring to standards such as dependability, impartiality, comprehensiveness and readability. Refining the quality of entries has long been one of the chief objectives of contributors to Wikipedia, and is one of the important strategic importance, but measuring it quantitatively has remained a test.
Wikipedia at present totals more than 23 million entries compared to 3.7 million total entries in 2005; at present it ranks 6th by global traffic according to Alexa, whereas it rated 37th in 2005. In the analysis conducted that involved two articles that are found in both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica ( HYPERLINK "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachloroethylene" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachloroethylene) and ( HYPERLINK "/science/tetrachloroethylene" /science/tetrachloroethylene), results put forward that Wikipedia entries in this sample recorded higher and fared principally well in classifications of accurateness and references. Wikipedia performed well in this sample compared to Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of accurateness, references and general judgement, with slight variances between the two on style and general eminence score. A possible challenge in preparing entries involve the addition of supplementary material such as photos, charts and tables.
The analysis process seemed to have been prolific and suitable. The criteria confined within the feedback implement delivered a suitable range of diverse viewpoints on entries and enthused a range of judgments and commentaries that, for the most part, allowed me to increase relatively a rich and astute range of commentaries about entries from assessors. Nevertheless, in developing this implement further, I recommend an additional period of testing of criteria, particularly around theories such as comprehensiveness, conciseness and consistency, which occasionally seemed to bring somewhat contradictory comments. There is, of course, an important problem in attempting to resolve the provision of flawless and reliable criteria so that a wide range of critics can be seen to be constructing comparable decisions, with the necessity to arrest the language and standards that academic whizzes might otherwise have employed, if basically asked to deliberate the strengths and weaknesses of entries as they observed them. It is definitely only through such a method that it would be conceivable to carry out any methodical form of measureable content analysis of qualitative findings. As it was, in analyzing the qualitative characteristic of the two entries in question, I had to make my own conclusions to some degree about whether a reviewer talked about delight of an entry.
The quantitative verdicts establish that, across the analysis, Wikipedia entries scored highly on accurateness, amount and eminence of references,...