Getting the facts straight

The philosopher Nietzsche once wrote "only in forgetfulness can a man ever achieve the illusion of possessing a truth."

A recent study by Nature magazine may have reaffirmed this belief and ruffled some feathers along the way.

The study seemed simple enough and probably pretty dull to most. It compared encyclopedia entries from two sources checking each one for accuracy.

But this study was no yawner. The comparison was between the venerated, hernia-inducing Encyclopedia Brittanica and its upstart, Internet competitor, Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is what's known as an open-source site. That means it's compiled by average people who are free to add or subtract from entries as they see fit.

Users are only required to cite their work. Afterwards, a sort of natural filtering process of citations and counter-citations separates the good from the bad.

This method might seem to be a recipe for misinformation or a forum for cranks, but it has quickly caught on. Since its creation in 2001, the site has grown to include 3.7 million articles in more than 200 languages.

And here's the kicker: According to the Nature study, it works almost as well as the encyclopedia compiled by the British starched-shirt crowd.

After examining 42 entries on scientific subjects in both sources, the magazine discovered 162 mistakes in Wikipedia and 123 in Brittanica.

Not a resounding endorsement of either one, but remember Wikipedia is free and compiled mainly by guys sitting around in their underwear.

Predictably, Brittanica had something to say about the study. It claimed the methods were flawed. It said comparisons were often of the apple-to-orange variety and said the study used partial and grafted Brittanica entries.

Partisans on both sides of the argument have since been posting in various forums to discredit or bolster statements made in the article.

The resulting debate has given everyone a better understanding of how encyclopedias are created.

And that may be the biggest revolution.

The days of one-to-many information dissemination are over. Everything now must be interactive and transparent or it's fossilized.

I got a taste of this phenomenon months ago when I wrote articles on a preservative used in vaccines called Thimerosal. Its use is a hot medical topic with some people believing it causes autism in infants and some saying it's safe.

I got more e-mails about my articles than I knew what to do with. They flooded in from all over the country.

These people were passionately correcting my scientific analysis, correcting the experts I quoted and linking to countless other sites. The effect was dizzying.

After a brief stint of flattery over my wide readership, I soon realized these readers all had e-mail news alerts informing them whenever an article containing the word "Thimerosal" was published on the Internet. These alerts don't discriminate between the New York Times and a church newsletter.

I found myself plugged into a world of personalized news sources. A world where news and information is not static or authoritarian but collaborative. While these readers shot back and forth, I saw only natural selection efficiently seeking truth through argument. Nietzsche might argue with this, but that's how it seemed.

So what does this democratization mean for the future of the encyclopedist and the professional reporter? They better be darned sure they get their facts straight.

TJ Greaney is a reporter for the Southeast Missourian.