Wikipedia to Britannica: “He That Is without Sin . . .”
Even expert sources like Britannica contain errors, reminding us not to blindly trust authority. A 2005 Nature study found Britannica had three errors per article, close to Wikipedia's four.
THE IDEA
Wikipedia to Britannica: “He That Is without Sin . . .”
Paid professionals make mistakes too. Back in 2005, the prestigious journal Nature compared forty-two different science articles in Wikipedia to the “gold standard” of encyclopedias, Britannica. The study found that the typical Wikipedia entry, written by volunteers, contained on average four mistakes per article. The same study found that Britannica, for all its hype and supposed expertise, contained about three errors per article. When Nature released its findings, Britannica published full page ads demanding a retraction. Nature’s editors held firm. “Entries were blinded—reviewers did not know which entry came from Wikipedia and which from Britannica,” retorted Nature, not budging an inch. “Our comparison was unbiased, and we reject Britannica’s allegation that we have acted in a dishonest manner. We stand by the story.”
When to use it
When conducting research, use multiple sources and cross-check facts rather than relying solely on one 'authoritative' source.
In educational settings, teach students that even peer-reviewed articles can contain errors, fostering a healthy skepticism.
When evaluating news or scientific claims, consider the possibility of mistakes in any source, including those with high credibility.
In debates or decision-making, avoid appealing to authority alone; instead, assess the evidence directly.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Nature vs. Britannica comparison
In 2005, Nature published a study comparing Wikipedia and Britannica science articles. Despite Britannica's reputation for expert curation, both sources had a similar number of errors per article (3 vs. 4). Even prestigious sources are fallible.
Blinded review reveals bias
Nature blinded the reviewers so they did not know which encyclopedia each article came from. This prevented preconceived notions about authority from influencing the error count, highlighting the importance of objective evaluation.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you recall a time when you accepted information from an expert source without question, only to later discover it was wrong?
How might the 'authority bias' affect our judgment when comparing sources like Wikipedia and Britannica?
What strategies can you use to critically evaluate information, regardless of the source's reputation?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Verified How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe Online (Mike Caulfield, Sam Wineburg)