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:
Man of the People (#StarTrek #TNG Rewatch, Season 6, Episode 3) When a tranquil envoy make...
Rewatching ST:TNG Called to the aid o...
Empathy
Opt Out of Pre-approved Credit Mailings Requires SSN and DoB? Not So Fast!
I was horrified to see that, in order to...
Business
Blind-accessible audio adventure Grail to the Thief seeks crowdfunding
Grail to the Thief stars a thief from th...
Culture
A tiny bit of rogue news leaked through the ads.
Hey, Newsweek, alert your webmaster. I c...
Business
That gut-wrenching photo of immigrant children in a cage? First published in 2014.
Don't blame "the media" for using this p...
Culture
My hard-working media students curated a collection of psychology student editorials & inf...
My "Media Aesthetics" students worked wi...
Academia


