COMMENTS: 0
Wikipedia beats Encyclopedia Britannica three to four
December 19, 2005 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Advertisement
What has not been splashed across the papers is that in fact Nature, one of the preeminent academic journals, pronounced that Wikipedia is accurate. (Or at least I missed this story, anyway):
"Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published [Dec. 16].
"The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries....
"Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three."
That's a knee-capping citizen-produced research has put on the holy Britanniacs.
In other, totally unrelated news, my favorite bit from that LA Times feature from Sunday on the Scientology HQ that trained Tom Cruise was that staffers at the compound had signed "billion-year contracts." Somewhere in a deep cave Xenu is fuming at the amazing job security the Scientologists offer.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism
The Timing Is Ripe for Obama to Make Demands on Israel to Settle for Peace
How Many Mexican Drug War Deaths Can We Attribute to U.S. Pot Laws?




