Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143-5 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 4278
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 143-5 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 3 Page|D #: 4278
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143-5 Filed 04/11/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4279
`
`I-man
`O1::
`‘L.
`
`E9OIn
`
`.n.
`<
`
`sites increasing
`influence,
`ques-
`tioning whether mul-
`tiple, unpaid editors can
`match paid professionals for
`accuracy. Writing in the online magazine TCS
`last year, former Britannica editor Robert
`McHenry declared one Wikipedia entry —- on
`US founding father Alexander Hamilton — as
`“what might be expected of a high—school stu-
`dent”. Opening up the editing process to all,
`regardless of expertise, means that reliability
`can never be ensured, he concluded.
`Yet Natures investigation suggests that
`Britannica’s advantage may not be great, at
`least when it comes to science entries. In the
`
`study, entries were chosen from the websites of
`Vfikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a
`broad range of scientific disciplines and sent
`to a relevant expert for peer review. Each
`reviewer examined the entry on a single sub-
`ject from the two encyclopaedias; they were
`not told which article came from which ency-
`clopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were
`returned out of 50 sent out, and were then
`examined by Nature’s news team.
`Only eight serious errors, such as misinter-
`pretations of important concepts, were
`
`particularly great:
`/yK\ ne of the extraordinary stories of the
`the
`average
`science
`Internet age is that ofW1kipedia, a free
`
`
`' online encyclopaedia that anyone can
`“
`entry in \/Vikipedia con-
`tained around four inaccura-
`edit. This radical and rapidly growing publica-
`tion, which includes close to 4 million entries,
`cies; Britannica, about three.
`is now a much-used resource. But it is also
`Considering how Wikipedia articles are
`written, that result might seem surprising. A
`solar physicist could, for example, work on the
`entry on the Sun, but would have the same
`status as a contributor without an academic
`
`controversial: if anyone can edit entries, how
`do users know if X/Vrkipedia is as accurate as
`established sources such as Encyclopaedia
`Britannica?
`
`*\_,‘ .,a,
`‘
`'
`
`Several recent cases have highlighted the
`potential problems. One article was revealed
`as falsely suggesting that a former assistant to
`US Senator Robert Kennedy may have been
`involved in his assassination. And podcasting
`pioneer Adam Curry has been accused of
`editing the entry on podcasting to remove
`references to competitors’ work. Curry says
`he merely thought he was making the entry
`more accurate.
`
`However, an expert-led investigation carried
`out by Nature — the first to use peer review to
`compare Wrkipedia and Britannica’s coverage
`of science — suggests that such high—profile
`examples are the exception rather than the rule.
`The exercise revealed numerous errors in
`
`both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries
`tested, the difference in accuracy was not
`900
`
`background. Disputes about content are usu-
`ally resolved by discussion among users.
`But Iimmy Wales, co—founder ofW1kipedia
`and president of the encyclopaedia’s parent
`organization, the Vfikimedia Foundation of
`St Petersburg, Florida, says the finding shows
`the potential of Vtfikipedia. “Fm pleased,” he
`says. “Our goal is to get to Britannica quality,
`or better.’’
`
`Wikipedia is growing fast. The encyclopaedia
`has added 3.7 million articles in 200 languages
`since it was founded in 2001. The English ver-
`sion has more than 45,000 registered users, and
`added about 1,500 new articles every day of
`October 2005. Wikipedia has become the 37th
`most visited website, according to Alexa, a web
`ranking service.
`But critics have raised concerns about the
`
`©2005 Nature Publishing Group
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143-5 Filed 04/11/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 4280 THE NATURE PODCAST
`
`
`Listen to Wikipedia founder
`Jimmy Wales talk about our
`survey and more at
`www.nature.carn/nature/
`podcast
`
`ma.
`
`nnnnp-5-
`
`v
`
`.-
`
`he was the 13th, to more significant inaccura-
`cies. Wikipedia,
`for example,
`incorrectly
`describes how Mendeleev’s work relates to that
`of British chemist Iohn Dalton. “Who wrote
`this stuff?” asked another reviewer. “Do they
`bother to check with experts?”
`But to improve Wikipedia, Wales is not so
`much interested in checking articles with
`experts as getting them to write the articles in
`the first place.
`As well as comparing the two encyclopaedias,
`Nature surveyed more than 1,000 Nature
`authors and found that although more than 70%
`had heard ofWikipedia and 17% of those con-
`sulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to
`update it. The steady trickle of scientists who
`have contributed to articles describe the experi-
`ence as rewarding, if occasionally frustrating
`(see ‘Challenges of being a Wikipedian’, below).
`Greater involvement by scientists would lead
`to a “multiplier effect”, says Wales. Most entries
`are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a
`researcher can boost article quality hugely.
`“Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced
`way,” he says.
`“Scientists' involvement
`Wales also plans to intro-
`duce a ‘stable’ version of
`
`I1):
`
`
`D.l.FRANKE/WlK|MED|A
`
`FDN .5;
`
`
`
`-:e
`
`ma’
`
`r.a.1u‘.
`
`
`
`
`Kurt Jansson (left), president of Wikimedia Deutschland, displays a list of 10,000 Wikipedia authors;
`Wikipedia's entry on global wai:ming has been a source of contention forrits contributors.
`
`detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four
`from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also
`found many factual errors, omissions or mis-
`leading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia
`and Britannica, respectively.
`Editors at Britannica would not discuss
`
`the findings, but say their own studies ofWiki-
`pedia have uncovered numerous flaws. “We
`have nothing against Wikipedia,” says Tom
`Panelas, director of corporate communications
`at the company’s headquarters in Chicago.
`“But it is not the case that errors creep in on an
`occasional basis or that a couple of articles are
`poorly written. There are lots ofarticles in that
`condition. They need a good editor.”
`Several Nature reviewers agreed with Pan-
`elas’ point on readability, commenting that the
`\/Vikipedia article they reviewed was poorly
`structured and confusing. This criticism is
`common among information scientists,
`who also point to other problems with article
`quality, such as undue prominence given to
`controversial scientific theories. But Michael
`
`the
`Twidale, an information scientist at
`University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign,
`says that Wikipediefs strongest suit is the speed
`at which it can updated, a factor not consid-
`ered by Natare’s reviewers.
`“People will find it shocking
`to see how many errors there
`would lead to a multiplier
`are in Britannica," Twidale
`adds. “Print encyclopaedias are
`effect. Experts can help
`often set up as the gold stan-
`write specifics in a
`dards of information quality
`nuanced way."
`against which the failings of
`made to a separate ‘live’ version that would
`faster or cheaper resources can be compared.
`replace the stable version when deemed to be a
`These findings remind us that we have an
`18—carat standard, not a 24—carat one.”
`significant improvement. One method for
`that on
`The most error—strewn article,
`determining that threshold, where users rate
`article quality, will be trialled early next year. I
`Dmitry Mendeleev, co-creator of the periodic
`Jim Giles
`table, illustrates this. Michael Gordin, a sci-
`Additional research by Declan Butler, Jenny Hogan,
`ence historian at Princeton University who
`Michael Hopkin, Mark Peplow and Tom Simonite.
`wrote a 2004 book on Mendeleev, identified 19
`Supplementary information available online at
`errors in Wikipedia and 8 in Britannica. These
`www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/fu|l/
`range from minor mistakes, such as describing
`438900a.htm|
`Mendeleev as the 14th child in his family when
`
`each entry. Once an article
`reaches a specific quality
`threshold it will be tagged as
`stable. Further edits will be
`
`Challenges of being a Wikipedian
`settling arguments, Bell says he
`Vaughan Bell, a neuropsychologist
`often learns something by doing
`at the Institute of Psychiatry in
`London, UK, has reworked
`so. One user posted a section on
`schizophrenia and violence that
`Wikipedia's entry on schizophrenia
`Bell considered little more than a
`over the past two years. Around
`"rant” about the need to lock up
`five others regularly contribute to
`the reworking, most of whom have
`people with the illness. "But editing
`it did stimulate me to look up
`not revealed whether they have
`literature on schizophrenia and
`academic backgrounds. Bell says
`violence," he says. “Even people
`that is not a problem, as disputes
`who are a pain in the arse can
`are settled through the discussion
`stimulate new thinking."
`page linked to the entry, often by
`citing academic articles. "lt's about
`Others, particularly those who
`contribute to politically sensitive
`the quality of what you do, not who
`you are," he explains.
`entries, have found the editing
`process more fraught. William
`While admitting it can be difficult
`
`Connolley, a climate researcher
`at the British Antarctic Survey
`in Cambridge, has fought for two
`years with climate-change sceptics
`over the entry on global warming.
`When Connolley was insulted by
`one of the sceptics and the editing
`became a 'revert war’ — where
`editors repeatedly undo each
`others’ changes — the matter was
`referred to the encyclopaedia’s
`administrators.
`Two of Conno||ey's opponents
`were banned from editing any
`climate article for six months,
`but it was a bumpy process. The
`
`Wikipedia editors who oversaw
`the case took three months to reach
`a decision. They also punished
`Connolley for repeatedly changing
`the sceptics’ edits, placing him on a
`six-month parole during which he is
`limited to one revert a day. Users
`who support Connolley have
`contested the decision.
`"It takes a long time to deal
`with troublemakers," admits
`Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia’s
`co—founder. "Conno||ey has done
`such amazing work and has had
`to deal with a fair amount of
`nonsense."
`
`J.G.
`
`901
`
`©2005 Nature Publishing Group