On Wednesday 14 December 2005 18:27, Jakob Voss wrote:
As I just wrote in my weblog
http://wm.sieheauch.de/
the study is
relatively poor. Good for Wikipedia but the sample is quite small and
it's vague how the articles were choosen. I bet nature would not have
accepted the research as a submited paper.
Agreed, though its a lot of work to get expert content reviews -- as Nupedia
shows! :) The other interesting thing was that the two sources have a
strong correlation in errors:
http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/nature-wp-v-eb?showcomments…