>> 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 shocked that finding "four major errors" (out of 50) [as stated in the original article] in both Wikipedia _AND_ in the Encyclopeadia Brittanica hasn't led to people ripping the latter to shreds.
The EB is supposedly a solid and accurate reference work. Yet here it's got an eight percent "major error" rate.
(And the count of 123 less serious ones, while better than the 162 in Wiki, is very ugly as well).
_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key snipped-for-privacy@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]