Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Appendixes/Reader's guide to Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Top to "Navigating within Wikipedia" section: Add links, update article count, replace stale Figure B-1 with a transclusion of Template:Wikipedia's sister projects (which is also used on the main page) formatted as an image |
|||
Line 42:
The best answer may be "Compared to what?" Wikipedia wouldn't be one of the world's top 10 most visited Web sites (that includes all 250-plus language versions, not just the English Wikipedia) if readers didn't find it better than available alternatives. To be sure, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia under construction. As the general disclaimer (see the Disclaimers link at the bottom of every page) says, "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."
On the other hand, Wikipedia has been reviewed by a number of outside experts, most famously in an article published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' in December 2005. In that article, a group of experts compared 42 articles in Wikipedia to the corresponding articles in [[Encyclopædia
None of which is to say that Wikipedia editors are wildly happy about the quality of many, if not most articles. Those most knowledgeable about Wikipedia have repeatedly talked about the need to improve quality, and that quality is now more important than quantity. The challenge is whether Wikipedia can implement a combination of technological and procedural changes that'll make a difference, because so far relatively incremental changes haven't made much of a dent in the problem of accuracy.
| |||