Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles

Lucy Holman Rector

120 citations0/0 files storedReference Services Review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Wikis in Education and Collaboration Library Science and Information Literacy Publishing and Scholarly Communication

Abstract

Purpose This paper seeks to provide reference librarians and faculty with evidence regarding the comprehensiveness and accuracy of Wikipedia articles compared with respected reference resources. Design/methodology/approach This content analysis evaluated nine Wikipedia articles against comparable articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online in order to compare Wikipedia's comprehensiveness and accuracy. The researcher used a modification of a stratified random sampling and a purposive sampling to identify a variety of historical entries and compared each text in terms of depth, accuracy, and detail. Findings The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95‐96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations. Research limitations/implications More research must be undertaken to analyze Wikipedia entries in other disciplines in order to judge the source's accuracy and overall quality. This paper also shows the need for analysis of Wikipedia articles' histories and editing process. Practical implications This research provides a methodology for further content analysis of Wikipedia articles. Originality/value Although generalizations cannot be made from this paper alone, the paper provides empirical data to support concerns regarding the accuracy and authoritativeness of Wikipedia.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 120 citations exist upstream.

References

2017The Wealth of Networks 2006Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology 2005Internet encyclopaedias go head to head 2004Free culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity 1972Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West 2006Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past 2004Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource 2000Content Analysis of the World Wide Web

Cited by

2018Do Experts Or Crowd-Based Models Produce More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia1 2011Information quality assessment of community generated content: A user study of Wikipedia 2011Janitors of knowledge: constructing knowledge in the everyday life of Wikipedia editors 2012The People’s Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Systematic Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia 2010Improving Wikipedia's credibility: References and citations in a sample of history articles

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.