What I would love to see is a study in a few weeks/months to show the evolution of these 50 articles in the days following the Nature article... and the delay which was necessary to track the various errors.
I would also welcome on the WMF site a paper summarizing both the findings of Nature AND the consequences of the article (both in the press... and directly on Wikipedia articles or on Wikipedians state of mind).
Anthere
Jeremy Dunck wrote:
" 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. "
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/box/438900a_BX1.html
I hope they publish more detail about this study.