Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the elementary-my-dear-data dept.

Raul654 writes "Nature magazine recently conducted a head-to-head competition between Wikipedia and Britannica, having experts compare 42 science-related articles. The result was that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3. However, a pair of endevouring Wikipedians dug a little deeper and discovered that the Wikipedia articles in the sample were, on average, 2.6 times longer than Britannica's - meaning Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica's." Interesting, considering some past claims. Story available on the BBC as well.

3 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Dugg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    http://www.digg.com/science/Wikipedia_vs._Encyclop aedia_Britannica:_Almost_a_tie

  2. Re:Hah! "Science" articles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    > What does Britannica say about "Goatse"?

    Sorry for the delay. I went to the public library to check. Unfortunately I have to report that the pages are stuck together. It's impossible to read between goat on page 513 and gobstopper on page 516. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

  3. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    Since when does longer mean better?
    Since we started watching pr0n stariing Long Dong...?