On 12/15/05, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Also, it was discussed on the wikipedia-l mailing
list that Britannica's
articles were usually shorter, and thus the mistakes were actually a greater
percentage of the information.
I think that's premature. The Nature article did mention that the
compared articles were specifically selected (in part by) comparable
entry length in both works.