Search
  Advanced Search
 
Journal search
Journal cover: Reference Services Review

Reference Services Review

ISSN: 0090-7324

Online from: 1973

Subject Area: Library and Information Studies

Content: Latest Issue | icon: RSS Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Previous article.Icon: Print.Table of Contents.Next article.Icon: .

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


Document Information:
Title:Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles
Author(s):Lucy Holman Rector, (Library & Instructional Resources, Harford Community College, Bel Air, Maryland, USA)
Citation:Lucy Holman Rector, (2008) "Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles", Reference Services Review, Vol. 36 Iss: 1, pp.7 - 22
Keywords:Encyclopaedias, Reference services
Article type:Research paper
DOI:10.1108/00907320810851998 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
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.



Fulltext Options:

Login

Login

Existing customers: login
to access this document

Login


- Forgot password?
- Athens/Institutional login

Purchase

Purchase

Downloadable; Printable; Owned
HTML, PDF (101kb)Purchase

To purchase this item please login or register.

Login


- Forgot password?

Recommend to your librarian

Complete and print this form to request this document from your librarian


Marked list


Bookmark & share

Reprints & permissions