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:
Facebook paid Teen Vogue to run a fake article praising Facebook for "helping ensure the i...
After FB crowed about this sup...
Business
Take a look at the moon tonight!
I wish I had the time or energy to get o...
Aesthetics
Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Definitive Oral History of a TV Masterpiece
The show was awash in quick, smart wis...
History
Understanding Anti-SLAPP laws - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Short for strategic lawsuits against pub...
Ethics
Superman Comic about Sympathy and Hope
Just in case someone out there could use...
Aesthetics
Tell-all crime reporting is a peculiarly American practice. Now U.S. news outlets are reth...
Journalists should balance the public's ...
Culture


