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:
Remember Me (#StarTrek #TNG Rewatch, Season Four, Episode 5) Dr. Crusher vs The Universe
Rewatching ST:TNG after a 20-year break....
Media
Scaring People Can Make Them Healthier, But It Isn't Always The Way To Go
As my freshman writing students assemble...
Culture
We're Teaching Books That Don't Stack Up
Our provost sent this link to English fa...
Academia
Digital Storytelling: Empower the Multimodal Writing Classroom with Scratch
How can the busy writing teacher interes...
Aesthetics
Effects of Internet use on the adolescent brain: despite popular claims, experimental evid...
Big difference between the clickbaity ve...
Cyberculture
Do Cultural Critics Have Any Value Left?
[T]he Internet has dramatically changed ...
Aesthetics


