>> >>> The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but
>>> among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not
>>> particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained
>>> around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three ...
>> I'm astonished that a 25% difference is considered "not particularly >> great".
> I'm astonished that something that can be explained by "jitter" of
> "plus/minus one count" in 'ordinal' numeric data, would be considered
> anything _other_ than "not particularly great". Well, unless they do
> not really understand statistical analysis, that is.
3 vs 4 is jitter. 126 vs. 168 is a bigger difference, though it's the same 25%. (Unless you believe that there are a lot of off-by-one errors, _all_ in the same direction.)
Seth