[WikiEN-l] Nature compares science coverage of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica

[Axel Boldt]

>From the Village Pump, found by BanyanTree: the Australian newspaper
The Age is the first to report on Nature's formal comparison of the
science coverage in the English Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html

"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among
42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not great: the
average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies;
Britannica, around three"

This can provide us with a good talking point in discussions about
Wikipedia's quality: "Wikipedia is not nearly as good as we would like
it to be, and you certainly cannot trust all statements in it. But then
again, Encyclopedia Britannica is not much better."

I also expect that, once the complete list of evaluated articles is
published by Nature, we will find that our articles are longer, so that
the error rate *per sentence* might very well be lower in Wikipedia.

Axel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com