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_cl…
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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"Jeremy Dunck" <jdunck(a)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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
If you want a Gmail account invite, or ten, just ask...