>> 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.