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:
Family Feud: Tense Thanksgiving for Facebook and George Takei
Businesses — as well as groups like no...
Business
On the Ethics of Rebranding a Former Trump Administration Official as an Amusing TV Person...
It’s also a disservice to readers to rep...
Culture
AP reporter’s mistake: Did the punishment fit the crime?
Reporters have been sometimes fired ...
Ethics
Writing Effective Dialogue (Punctuation and Actions in Creative Writing)
“Punctuating dialogue properly is import...
Humanities
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (workshop premiere of a new musical by Greg Kerestan)
I really enjoyed seeing the first work...
Culture
False equivalency in a copspeak guide to dealing with the media
Police chief and writer Cliff Couch know...
Culture


