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

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Nature compares science coverage of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Nature compares science coverage of Wikipedia andEncyclopaedia Britannica
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

 "Bob Mellish" wrote

>That's a rather good showing for Wikipedia. As soon as the issue is
available at Nature's webpage, I'll look for more details.

Hang on, let's be scientific.  If EB consolidates articles more than WP, 
because WP uses hypertext freely to break things up, then 'per article' is 
not necessarily a good metric.  And 'per 10000 words' would say more.

Charles 

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Nature compares science coverage of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Nature compares science coverage of Wikipedia andEncyclopaedia Britannica
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]