[WikiEN-l] Nature compares science coverage of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica

Wed Dec 14 17:26:55 UTC 2005

On 12/14/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the reporting is accurate, this is a very significant finding,
> considering the general perception that Wikipedia doesn't cover
> science well.
>
>
Is that really the general perception?I've always been of the belief that
Wikipedia covers science very well, especially as the articles are often
written by experts with very little edit warring. It's the political,
social, historical and biographical articles that I have much less faith in.
People who write about, say, [[Analytic combinatorics]] generally know what
they're talking about, while the same can't necessarily be said about
[[Communism]]...

Anyway, that sounds like an interesting study.

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos