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:
Diamonds Are Bullsh*t
I did propose with a diamond ring, for w...
Business
The Host (#StarTrek #TNG Rewatch, Season 4, Episode 23) Dr. Beverly Crushes on a Symbiont
Rewatching ST:TNG Trek explores some ...
Culture
"Do Date" vs "Due Date": Do Profs Really Have to Explain the Difference?
If there really are teachers who lis...
Academia
Overheard at Quora: "Why after all these years is Moodle still so ugly?"
Moodle is a free course-management tool ...
Academia
Copspeak, "the past exonerative" tense, and punching Nazis
In the Constitution, any suspect is inno...
Culture
The disastrous voyage of Satoshi, the world’s first cryptocurrency cruise ship
Last year, three cryptocurrency enthusia...
Business


