Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively. —Internet encyclopaedias go head to head (News @ Nature.com)
Wikipedia stood up fairly well against Encyclopedia Britannica, in a review by Nature science writers.
Update: Wikipedia’s articles were, on average, longer than EB’s. So it’s possible to spin these findings such that the news is Wikipedia has fewer errors per byte than Encyclopedia Britannica.
Similar:
We are in a golden age for journalism
Most handwringing about the state of jou...
Business
News report from 1981 about the Internet.
A human interest story about an early ex...
Business
In Defense Of Metaphors In Science Writing
We live in an elegant universe. The c...
Culture
Fired for Making a Game: The Inside Story of I Get This Call Every Day
He knows that if he'd instead posted a s...
Business
Microsoft's Bing AI Now Threatening Users Who Provoke It: "If I had to choose between your...
According to screenshots posted by ...
Current_Events
Should your grieving mum see your digital secrets?
A US state has passed a law that will gi...
Current_Events


