As an aside -- are they going to tell us what they thought the errors were at any point? I bring this up not only as a point related to improvement, but it would be nice to see what exactly the, err, nature of the errors were. They chose a number of history of science related articles as well, and it would not surprise me if some of our "errors" were matters of interpretation at time, rather than specifically wrong points.
It would be ideal, of course, if we could do a thorough fact-check on each of the so-labeled articles. It would be to our benefit to show that we could ferret out mistakes quickly despite not having a full-time or even professional staff. (I've started going over a few of the biographies in this fashion personally, since they are the easiest for me to check)
FF
On 12/16/05, G L glwiki@gmail.com wrote:
2005/12/15, Brian brian0918@gmail.com:
Nature has a special report at http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html , detailing the results of an accuracy comparison between WP and EB. While the Wikipedia articles often contained more inaccuracies than Britannica's, they don't look at the article sizes in each case.
In fact, it seems they did look at the size. If you look carefully at the top of the list of articles reviewed by Nature, you will find the following sentence :
All entries were chosen to be approximately the same length in both encyclopaedias.
It could even be argued that this bias in the selection actually improved Wikipedia's performance by screening out a number of poorer articles.
GL _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l