It's probably old news, but with all the hubbub about Wikipedia, I found this tidbit from Nature.com apropos and interesting.
Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds...Yet Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great.
In short, Nature went to great lengths to show that Britannica is only marginally more accurate than Wikipedia on science subjects. Oh, but Britannica is easier to read.
Editors at Britannica would not discuss the findings, but say their own studies of Wikipedia have uncovered numerous flaws. "We have nothing against Wikipedia," says Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications at the company's headquarters in Chicago. [yeah right] "But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written. There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."
Anyone want to go 50-50 on some Britannica stock? Anyone? Anyone out there even use Britannica??
For reservations, call
office864.335.9161.
Send fan mail to our work location at
300 East Stone Avenue,
Greenville,
SC
29609
USA
34.85984128288701
-82.38952159881592
Lovingly crafted by orangecoat with some rights reserved, and a promise not to spam you.
The real wierdness is that both encylopedias had at least a few facts wrong per science article. I liked what SEEDMagazine.com had to say about it.
"Wikipedia v. Britannica: User-edited Wikipedia is not substantially less accurate than Britannica when it comes to science articles, reports Nature. The expert-led investigation carried out by the journal showed that Britannica averages three errors per science article, whereas Wikipedia averages four errors per science article. The moral: Don't trust encyclopedias."