What I would love to see is a study in a few weeks/months to show the
evolution of these 50 articles in the days following the Nature
article... and the delay which was necessary to track the various errors.
I would also welcome on the WMF site a paper summarizing both the
findings of Nature AND the consequences of the article (both in the
press... and directly on Wikipedia articles or on Wikipedians state of
mind).
Anthere
Jeremy Dunck wrote:
"
Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important
concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from
each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors,
omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and
Britannica, respectively.
"
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/box/438900a_BX1.html
I hope they publish more detail about this study.