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

Wed Dec 14 21:08:47 UTC 2005

Mathias Schindler wrote:

> Here is the article list: 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html
> 
> here is the full article: 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
> 
> Entry  	Encyclopaedia Britannica inaccuracies  	
> Wikipedia inaccuracies
> Acheulean industry 	1 	7
> Agent Orange 	2 	2

[snip]

What would be really interesting would be to get a list of the
inaccuracies themselves (not just the tallies of how many were found in
each article).

Then see how long it takes for Wikipedians to get the same articles to
pass peer review with No Errors in the entire sample.

If it was less than a month, that would vindicate the opennes of
Wikipedia. Less than a week would be mind-blowing.

And no fair taunting the peer reviewers with {{sofixit}}, either :-)

Ed Poor