Looking for valid way to compare reliability accuracy for student
research in a Briticanica type reference compared to Wikipedia.  NY
Times weekend article featured story man who was erroneously accused
of be part of conspiracy plot(Kennedy) lies about him remained for
over 132 days. See excerpt follows--

For 132 days, Seigenthaler said the biography of him falsely claimed
that "for a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved
in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby."
The biography also falsely stated that he had lived in the Soviet
Union from 1971 to 1984.
Seigenthaler said he wasn't convinced the new registration requirement
would stop the practice of vandals posting content that is slanderous
or knowingly incorrect. Wikipedia will either have to fix the problem
or will lose whatever credibility it still has, he said.

If reputation vandalism and name calling can happen wtihout ties
or consequence to the individual vandal is wikipedia really the self
described "democracy" it says or is some other term more accurate? If
so, what term?

Dear Brainfood, 

Before I begin my answer, let me put a disclaimer: I am a huge fan of
Wikipedia (and of Wikis in general).

Having said that, I think that the structure of Wikipedia might pose a
problem, especially - but not only - with controversial issues, or
those subjected to politics. Who stops some David Irving fan (or
Irving himself, for all that matters) from getting into the Holocaust
article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust> and "amending" the
details to reflect their twisted ideology?

And what if I would like to have my childish revenge at someone? This
had happened to an Israeli writer, Amnon Jacknet, whose ex-son-in-law
smeared his (Hebrew) Wikipedia article:

Timothy L. O'Brien, "Online scammers go spear-phishin'" The New York
Times, December 4, 2005,
<http://news.com.com/Online+scammers+go+spear-phishin/2100-1029_3-5981917.html?type=pt>

English wiki - short discussion of the event
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amnon_Jackont> 

Wikipedia claims to have some control mechanisms: 
- The fact that it is open to all, also implies some peer review:
anyone can view the latest changes
Recent Changes
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges> 
- The discussion page provides some opportunity to discuss the issue
and the controversies. See for example, the one regarding the
Holocaust:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust> 
- Sometimes, the page itself depicts a "warning", that the issue is controversial: 
David Irving
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving> 
- The have a policy to deal with vandalism: 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing_with_vandalism> 

Two separate experiments have found, that deliberate vandalism (of the
type you describe) on Wikipedia is usually found within five minutes
from the moment of the act:
IBM "history flow: results",
<http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/history/results.htm>
Vandalism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism&diff=24257748&oldid=24244333>

These control mechanism notwithstanding, there are several comparisons
of Britannica and Wikipedia.

Here are some of the results: 
"Overall verdict: Wikipedia&#8217;s advantage is in having more,
longer, and more current entries. If it weren&#8217;t for the
Microsoft-case entry, Wikipedia would have been the winner hands down.
Britannica&#8217;s advantage is in having lower variance in the
quality of its entries." (SOURCE: Ed Felten, "Wikipedia vs. Britannica
Smackdown", <http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=675>).

The challenge: 
Wikipedia vs Britannica 
<http://www.emergentchaos.com/archives/000323.html 

[My note: obviously, Wikipedia's structure allows it to be more
dynamic and have more up-to-date articles. Which brings me to the next
point of comparison]

"The main reason for my disappointment was that Britannica decides
what is important and what is not important. Though I&#8217;m not a
big Star Wars fan, I know that a lot of people are, so I looked for
Star Wars on Britannica and only found an index page, which referred
to a paragraph in George Lucas&#8217; biography, and another couple of
blurbs in biographies of actors who appeared in it." (source:
FunnyCow, "Wikipedia: The Orange in the Apple Bowl",
<http://www.funnycow.com/2005/10/25/wikipedia-the-orange-in-the-apple-bowl/>).

"Onto another relatively obscure topic &#8212; drum and bugle corps.
Those who know me know that this is a topic near and dear to my heart,
and I was interested in Britannica&#8217;s coverage. Here it is: 32
words. A brief paragraph in the &#8220;band&#8221; article explaining
that drum and bugle corps use drums and bugles (thanks!) and are
sponsored by community organizations, basically. On the other hand,
Wikipedia first makes the distinction between &#8220;classic&#8221;
and &#8220;modern&#8221; drum corps, which is important and relevant.
Each of these sections goes into detail about what it is and links to
many other specialized pages, including many pages dedicated to
specific corps." (ibid).

[My note - this could be also a point of criticism: but then again,
there is a sort of distorted "equality" in the articles: fads like the
Flying Spaghetti Monster receive space, just  like the Pope:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Monster> 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope>]. 

Another comparison states: 
" I use Wikipedia almost daily, sometimes much more often than that,
and I have never been disappointed with the results. I have a "real"
Britannica - you know, the paper version, which I also use for
comparison purposes. The quality of the writing and the scholarship is
generally comparable." (SOURCE: CNET, Wikipedia Review
<http://www.cnet.com.au/software/productivity/0,39025718,40057981,00.htm>).

Wikipedia's own article: 
Wikipedia:Articles that are more comprehensive than on Encyclopedia Britannica 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_that_are_more_comprehensive_than_on_Encyclopedia_Britannica>

See also: 
Wikipedia:Size comparisons 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons> 

FunnyCow summarises with an important conclusion: 
"So why do we keep comparing Wikipedia with Britannica when
they&#8217;re entirely different animals? Well, part of the problem is
in the labeling of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It makes sense that
they chose that label, but they&#8217;re actually not an encylopedia.
An encyclopedia is exclusive, highly controlled, and elitist; and yet,
within that context, it is extremely reliable as a source. Wikipedia,
on the other hand, is also very reliable, because the majority of
users who are doing the editing have an interest in accuracy of the
information, but probably not as reliable as an traditional
encyclopedia. But what it lacks in absolute and unquestionable
reliability, it gains in its unlimited scope. Sure, there are
&#8220;stub&#8221; articles and articles that are badly written. But
there are also topics that are absolutely immensly covered. And the
speed with which the articles can come together is amazing. I remember
seeing the articles on Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Harriet
Miers grow from practically nothing to very complete articles on the
very day of their nominations.

Say what you want about Wikipedia &#8212; but the comparisons with
other encyclopedias are like comparing apples and oranges. An apple is
good, but I also like oranges. I like them a lot." (ibid)

This view is of course a controversial one. "So with Wikipedia &#8212;
it&#8217;s possible to make Britannica look superior to the Wikipedia
by simply excluding characteristics Britannica cannot compete on, like
cost, accessibility, and timeliness. And with that as background, I
found this statement of danah&#8217;s, &#8220;It will never be an
encyclopedia&#8221; (emphasis hers), to be both right and wrong in
illuminating ways.

I agree with her if you add the unspoken bit to that sentence:
&#8220;It will never be an encyclopedia (of the sort Britannica
is.)&#8221; Stated this way, the assertion is true, and I don&#8217;t
think anyone from Wikipedia would dispute that &#8212; not only is it
radically different, it&#8217;s principle value is in that radical
difference.

However, Britannica is not the only model for an encyclopedia. Before
Britannica, encyclopedias had authors &#8212; Pliny, Bacon, Coleridge.
Even Diderot and D&#8217;Alembert&#8217;s version, the bridge between
the ancient and modern encyclopedia, had its entries written by the
great and the good of the era. Britannica made it possible to extend
the project of gathering and expressing encyclopedic knowledge, by
substituting institutional brand for authorship. This allowed them to
have more people working on more subjects, over a wider range of both
inquiry and time, than was previously possible.

[...] 

So the idea that the Wikipedia will never be an encyclopedia is in
part an ahistorical assertion that the definition and nature of
encyclopediahood is fixed for all time, and that works like Britannica
are avatars of the pattern. Contra boyd, I think Wikipedia will be an
encyclopedia when the definition of the word expands to include peer
production of shared knowledge, not just Britannica&#8217;s
institutional production."
(*SOURCE: "Wikipedia: Me on boyd on Sanger on Wales",
<http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/01/05/wikipedia_me_on_boyd_on_sanger_on_wales.php>).

In any case, it is not Wikipedia alone that has mistakes and errors in
it, and at least in the case of Wikipedia, it usually takes less than
five minutes - not a whole edition - for things to correct themselves:
Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclop&#230;dia Britannica that have been
corrected in Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop&#230;dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia>

Britannica Errors
<http://members.cox.net/kevin82/eberrors.htm> 

 Justin Parkinson, "Boy brings encyclopaedia to book", BBC News, 26 January 2005
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4209575.stm> 

Alexandra Blair,, "12-year-old expert brings top encyclopaedia to
book" Sunday Times Online,
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1456119,00.html>

Lucian George, Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia (LooseWire Blog)
<http://loosewire.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/lucian_george_e.html> 

Errors in the Encyclopaedia Britannica about Pedro Nunes 
J. F. Queir&#243;
<http://www.mat.uc.pt/~jfqueiro/Britannica_errors.html> 

Experiences about Britannica Online
<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/eb.html> (more errors or typos)

Joseph McCabe, "The Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britanica
How Powerful And Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated A Famous Work Of
Reference:" - claims that Britannica misleads.
<http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/lies_of_britannica.html> 

Further Reading: 
---------------
Robert McHenry, "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia",
<http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html> - Britannica's
President v. Wikipedia

The Guardian, "Can you trust Wikipedia?",
<http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html?gusrc=rss>
- but without comparison to Britannica (or any other established
encyclopaedia) and with a piece by Wikipedia's nemesis, McHenry.

"Why Wikipedia works, and how the Britannica bully got it wrong"
<http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/26/why_wikipedia_works_.html> 

I hope this answers your question. Please contact me if you need any
clarification on this answer before you rate it. My search terms were:
britannica errors , error on britannica, comparison wikipedia
britannica, comparison wikipedia "established encyclopedia", wikipedia
vandalism , wikipedia Amnon Jackont

---

Clarification of Answer by politicalguru-ga on 06 Dec 2005 11:24 PST

Brainfood, 

Following the latest scandal, Wikipedia added another control mechanism: 
Daniel Terdiman  "Growing pains for Wikipedia" CNET, Dec. 5, 2005, 
<http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag=nefd.lede>

---

Clarification of Answer by politicalguru-ga on 16 Dec 2005 06:33 PST

And more: 

Daniel Terdiman, "Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica", CNET
News.com, December 15, 2005,
<http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?part=rss&tag=5997332&subj=news>

So, there.

I'm sure there are some malicious and clever parallells to be drawn
between Wikipedia as a democracy and the USA as a democracy.
Personally, I'd go for the aristocratic Britannica, IF it were as
accessible as Wikipedia.

This is the classical confrontation of two media:  the book vs. the
web; the established old medium vs. the new, young, and still immature
medium.  The new  - web -  will prevail.  Perhaps on Britannica?s
website it also already is, with new articles being added and existing
ones updated  - within a more controlled environment.  (Who knows,
maybe Britannica is responding to new topics that appear on Wikipedia.
 I love our hardbound Britannica, but clicking on Wikipedia is a lot
easier.)
Something similar is happening in reporting of current events in a
much less controlled way.  As newspapers are becoming owned and
controlled by a fewer owners and providing less varied opinions, on
the web sites have grown that supplement the diversity lost in the
newsprint media, but compared with Wikipedia their contents are
completely uncontrolled.  This is much more invidious since readers
are accustomed to the traditional quality of journalistic reporting
with its rules about mentioning sources if only one or if conflicting
sources are used.  Some (many?) web news sites   - or perhaps, ?news?
sites -  present text that does not conform to this standard, but
reader are led to assume accuracy from their experience and trust in
the older print medium.
Myoarin

Wkipedia is an open source Encyclopedia. And that leads to anyone
being able to post. Generalization without fact, knowledge or
education. And not having any repercussions on errors. Encyclopedia
Britanica on the otherhand that have a paid staff and subject to
scrutiny.

It is not so much about old vs. new medias, it is about fact or
supposition vs. Hearsay and meandering memories.

I have posted. And also corrected in Wikipedia. Under ethnomusicology
[Motown]. But then again, this is my profession.

Kegtapper is no doubt right that there are some extraneous articles in
Wikipedia, but I understand that new articles are very quickly spotted
by the "community" and reviewed.

The Seigenthaler "incident" has made the German papers, even with an
editorial in my local one.  This indicates the broad recognition of
Wikipedia, that just recently had its big conference here.  The
articles and editorials were rather unfriendly towards the "loose"
controls and Jimmy Wales.  I inferred a bit of:  "See there, sloppy
American free-wheeling approach to how to do things.  And he runs it
like an autocrat."
Of course, the incident is unfortunate, but the fact that it was the
first time misuse of Wikipedia made the news suggests that the system
is pretty darn good.  And I like its letting some debated articles
stand with reference to differing opinions.