February 16, 2006

Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica

Picture 1.png

For those who missed the recent encyclopedia smackdown (we're still playing catch-up here) Nature published a study in December of 2005 comparing the accuracy of 42 science articles in both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. The results: Wikipedia's entries, created by a diverse group of public participants, were found to be only marginally less accurate than Britannica's entries, created and vetted by credentialled experts and editors (162 vs. 123 errors total, respectively - or on average roughly 4 vs. 3 errors per article).

This is good news for Wikipedia which currently contains over 2.5 million articles and is the 37th most visited website on the internet. It's also good news for HowStuffisMade, which is wiki-based (though still responsible to standards of evidence overseen by academics), and for B.I.T.'s continuing work on 'distributed lay interpretation,' a central thesis of the OOZ project.

Nature Special Report

Posted by cdierks at February 16, 2006 4:14 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?