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:
14 questions for new journalists to consider when filing a story - Poynter
If you’re new to reporting, here is an e...
Education
Unemployment rates for recent college grads: Overall, 5.8%; Computer science, 6.1%; Comput...
The market is rough for college grads, a...
Business
Lego Timeline
The Lego brick system was patented 50 ye...
Aesthetics
My copy of Plotkin's Hadean Lands arrived today.
Current_Events
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales wants new Facebook feature to burst 'filter bubble'
It's extremely important to understand w...
Cyberculture
What Happens When Digital Cities Are Abandoned?
“The great paradox about these digital c...
Culture


