Scot Hacker over at Birdhouse.org higlighted an interesting article that the Guardian published on Monday, asking the question as to how good the entries on Wikipedia actually are. It is worth saying that the starting point for this was that one of the people behind Wikipedia had freely admitted that some of the entries were ‘a horrific embarrassment’.
Aside from one, the pretty unscientific review gave between 6 and 8 out of 10 to the entries reviewed. Scot regards this as somewhat of a failure, however I don’t see it that way. The key point to bear in mind is that this is a free resource, put together by volunteers. It is worth noting that all the reviewed articles are now highlighted on the top as needing more work – indeed the beauty of the Wikipedia system is that the experts that the Guardian picked could update the articles to bring them up to their 10/10 standard. The other point to bear in mind is that Wikipedia has a much more broad focus – as an example I doubt you’d find an episode by episode guide to Doctor Who in Britannica….