The Accuracy of Wikipedia

Is Wikipedia accurate? Well, I've used it a number of times from everything from blog entries to research papers, though in important situations I try to at least confirm the information I've received.

An article on MSN, the "news" service I love to loathe, claims that a recent audit by an independent third party found that Wikipedia is no less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica, at least when it comes to science articles.

[...] Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found — including misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from each source, the journal reported.

I'm not sure how much stock I put in this. A few weeks ago, I corrected this article, which included MacPhisto but omitted The Fly, and listed the name of the appropriate song/video as "Hold Me, Touch Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me". Nitpicking from a U2 fan? Sure, but if it's in the encyclopedia, it's supposed to be accurate, not just some crap that some wanker dropped on there. When we want crap that wankers spew, we have the New York Times and the BBC. And let's not forget this story from a few months ago, about a twelve year old boy who found numerous mistakes in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I'll keep using the Wikipedia, because for the most part the information is reliable; but let's be realistic about how accurate an encyclopedia that can be edited by any slack-jawed idiot with a modem and twenty minutes on his hands can be. If the quality is low enough that The Fly has corrected mistakes before, it's not gospel.