The British journal
Nature
ran blind tests asking experts to compare scientific entries from both
publications.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the
source of the information.
Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts,
were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia.
Reviewers found 162 factual errors in the Wikipedia documents, compared to
123 in the Britannica documents.
Nature also said that its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often
poorly structured and confused. Wikipedia is a free resource edited by 13,000
contributors.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica declined to comment on the findings.
Background A fantastic opportunity has just arisen within this growing multinational organisation. Working as an EMEA Advisory Consultant your main duties and responsibilities will be to provide advice and support to international organisations looking to ... more >
This is a hands-on development team lead position that will push you to the limit of your architectural and mentoring capabilities. Technical amp; development (Agile) • Create effective data solutions, in partnership with the relevant ... more >
C++ Research Developer Global Pharmaceutical Company London C++ Research Developer Biotechology Global Medical Company London Global Biotechnology Company specialising in the research and development of cutting edge health care products is looking for an innovative, ... more >
Junior Network Operations Engineer – Borehamwood - £24k Junior / entry level network operations engineer required, will be responsible for supporting external clients network and security solutions. Excellent entry level position as my client offers ... more >More job opportunities
Print
Discuss
Send to friend
RSS feeds
del.icio.us
Digg this
reddit!
