Wikipedia turns out to be pretty good

At the risk of going all Wikipedia, all the time, I wanted to point to this:
Nature took stories from Wikipedia and Britannica on 42 science-related topics and submitted them to experts for review. The experts were not told which encyclopedia the stories were from. "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," according to Nature.

| The Age |

The main point I would add to this article is that it is possible that the number of errors in Wikipedia will go down via the collective action of its users. One would think that Britannica is always going to have about the same rate of errors in every edition.

Hmmm. I wonder if any of the experts involved in that study went back and fixed those errors after reporting the results? I bet some did!

No comments:

Post a Comment

eXTReMe Tracker