Britannica vs. Wikipedia (Nature, 12/15)

December 15, 2005 on 9:51 pm | In Science News & Hot Topics |

From Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, in this week’s Nature:

However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica’s coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule.

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.

The article also acknowledges some of the problems of Wikipedia, notably the false article about John Seigenthaler.

See also: Challenges of being a Wikipedian and Wiki’s wild world (”read Wikipedia cautiously and amend it enthusiastically”)