It is in Wikinews, as "A Nature investigation finds Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries" http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/A_Nature_investigation_finds_Wikipedia_comes_clo...
It and other comparisons might be of merit for the Foundation website.
Also, it was discussed on the wikipedia-l mailing list that Britannica's articles were usually shorter, and thus the mistakes were actually a greater percentage of the information.
Nick Moreau zanimum
On 12/15/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Jeremy Dunck" jdunck@gmail.com wrote in message news:2545a92c0512141256w5d0dd64fs92633cdca30a771@mail.gmail.com...
"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.
Has this been written up yet?
Possible title [[en:Wikipedia: Comparison of Wikipedia with Brittannica by Nature magazine]]
Or should it live on meta?
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- If you want a Gmail account invite, or ten, just ask...