Thread: Wikipedia may be more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica
View Single Post
Old 12-15-2005, 03:42 PM   #1
Bob Russell
Recovering Gadget Addict
Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bob Russell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Bob Russell's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,381
Karma: 676161
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Device: iPad
Wikipedia may be more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica
Nature magazine has done a study on 42 "science-related" entries to compare Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, and finds that the subject matter experts found one less error per article on average in the Wikipedia articles (an average of three errors per article instead of four).

That would be bad enough publicity for Britannica, but now the results are piling on. It seems that further analysis (Item #64 if the link doesn't locate it completely for you) shows that Wikipedia articles are more than twice as long as Britannica articles. That means that the error rate for a given length of text compares even more favorably for Wikipedia.

(via Slashdot)
Bob Russell is offline   Reply With Quote