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_close_to_Britannica_in_terms_of_the_accuracy_of_its_science_entries

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...