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:
Each building in my #medievalyork simulation has four levels of detail (so that distant ob...
What have my students learned about creative nonfiction writing? During class they are col...
There’s No Longer Any Doubt That Hollywood Writing Is Powering AI
Sesame Street had a big plot twist in November 1986
I’ve been teaching with this handout for over 25 years, updating it regularly. I just remo...
Sorry, not sorry. I don't want such friends.