> -----Original Message----- > From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:25 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Nature mag lied about wiki vs. EB > > Claims that Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica appear > to be complete BS: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
Well... these are just claims that the claims that that Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica appear to be complete BS. ;^) EB comments are based only the article released, not the full study. They have asked Nature to release all the research materials and I hope they do. It would allow third parties to evaluate the statements. Apparently many of the points at issue are opinions (for example EB claims that many simplifications consciously included to target their audience better are being marked as errors). It's also good to remember that the sample size for this study was both restricted and very small (42 science articles). In the end it can't say much about either publication as a whole or when concerning other domains. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:201379 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
