I one reads my messages again, one would find that in each and every single message I've stated that one should use Wikipedia as a starting point.
My problem is that people tend to think of wiki as unreliable and that is blatantly not true. I challenge anyone to find me an article on a subject that is factually wrong. I am not claiming it doesn't exist but you will be hard pressed to find one in 10.000 articles. And I am not talking about vandalized articles since they are being restored very quickly, or articles in the past because the strength of a dynamic system like wiki is it power to repair itself.
Nature, Time magazine, the TUe, and dozens of others have tested the accuracy of Wikipedia and found less, the same amount, or a few more errors then they found in Elsevier, EB, or Encarta. These tests were done by sending articles to experts in the subject without a source, and letting them check the articles for factual errors or mistakes in the understanding of the subjects.
EB contended the findings and methodology of Nature scientific Journal in an open letter and demanded Nature retracted their findings. Nature refused and sent out their own letter explaining their methodology and why it is scientifically valid.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43...00a-s1.doc
The methodology Nature Scientific Journal used.
http://corporate.britannica.com/britanni...sponse.pdf
EB's criticism.
http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Bri...sponse.pdf
Nature's Response to EB.
My problem is that people tend to think of wiki as unreliable and that is blatantly not true. I challenge anyone to find me an article on a subject that is factually wrong. I am not claiming it doesn't exist but you will be hard pressed to find one in 10.000 articles. And I am not talking about vandalized articles since they are being restored very quickly, or articles in the past because the strength of a dynamic system like wiki is it power to repair itself.
Nature, Time magazine, the TUe, and dozens of others have tested the accuracy of Wikipedia and found less, the same amount, or a few more errors then they found in Elsevier, EB, or Encarta. These tests were done by sending articles to experts in the subject without a source, and letting them check the articles for factual errors or mistakes in the understanding of the subjects.
EB contended the findings and methodology of Nature scientific Journal in an open letter and demanded Nature retracted their findings. Nature refused and sent out their own letter explaining their methodology and why it is scientifically valid.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43...00a-s1.doc
The methodology Nature Scientific Journal used.
http://corporate.britannica.com/britanni...sponse.pdf
EB's criticism.
http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Bri...sponse.pdf
Nature's Response to EB.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
