This one is all over the blogosphere but I'll pass it along because it's directly relevant to some previous discussion here. As the article says, "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds." What was most interesting was the number of errors found in Britannica; we assume the peer-reviewed work is a gold standard for knowledge, but this standard is actually fairly loose. Also worth noting is how few experts are actually contributing to Wikipedia - if the academic community were to stop carping and start writing, the comparison with Britannica may well have had a very different result. More discussion from the blogosphere: Kairosnews, the Chronicle, Shareski, Business Week, Weblogg-Ed, Slashdot
Today: 1 Total: 17 [Direct link] [Share]
