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:
Plans for the Little Known Confederate Helicopter
The possibilities of combining Civil War...
Design
Fox lawyers Convince Judge that Fox's Tucker Carlson is "not stating actual facts" and "an...
To defend Fox personality Tucker Carlson...
Culture
This is fine. Really.
Thanks(?) to social media, it's very eas...
Culture
How Artists on Twitter Tricked Spammy T-Shirt Stores Into Admitting Their Automated Art Th...
Yesterday, an artist on Twitter named Na...
Business
Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe. —Thomas Jefferson
Education
Just remember: what you’re seeing and what you're reading is not what’s happening.
Words apparently spoken by the President...
Current_Events
