This link has been bookmarked by 125 people . It was first bookmarked on 15 Jul 2006, by Rodrigo.
-
02 Jan 16
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD."Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
UPDATE: see details of how the data were collected for this article in the supplementary information.
UPDATE 2 (28 March 2006). The results reported in this news story and their interpretation have been disputed by Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nature responded to these objections ."wikipedia head to head Britannica encyclopaedas accuracy scientific science research value comparison encyclope wiki wikipediadia nature
-
21 May 15
-
09 Oct 14
-
30 May 14
-
23 Sep 13
-
07 Apr 13
citizenwald"Special Report Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
Jim Giles
Top of page
Abstract
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
UPDATE: see details of how the data were collected for this article in the supplementary information.
UPDATE 2 (28 March 2006). The results reported in this news story and their interpretation have been disputed by Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nature responded to these objections .
One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource."wikipedia information open_access publishing authorship book_history
-
20 Feb 13
-
31 Jan 13
-
13 Sep 12
-
22 Aug 12
-
12 May 12
-
11 May 12
-
15 Mar 12
-
03 Mar 12
-
17 Feb 12
-
28 Nov 11
-
17 Nov 11
-
how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?
-
-
28 Sep 11
-
06 May 11
-
28 Mar 11
-
17 Dec 10
-
16 Nov 10
Christine DufourÉtude publiée dans Nature comparant Wikipedia et Britannica.
-
01 Nov 10
-
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
-
One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly grow
-
-
26 Oct 10
-
14 Aug 10
-
29 Jun 10
-
25 Jun 10
-
16 Apr 10
-
07 Apr 10
-
25 Mar 10
-
22 Feb 10
-
09 Feb 10
-
16 Dec 09
-
08 Nov 09
nunzsuA 2005-ös Nature-cikk a EB és a WP összehasonlításáról
-
03 Nov 09
-
27 Oct 09
-
06 Oct 09
-
20 Aug 09
-
09 Jun 09
Jared SteinNature 438, 900-901 (15 December 2005) | doi:10.1038/438900a; Published online 14 December 2005
-
01 Apr 09
-
22 Jan 09
-
15 Oct 08
Georgina BHi Everyone, this may be the article regarding the accuracy of Wikipedia vs. Britannica that Dr. Grossblatt was talking about. This is three years old, so I wonder if the findings would be different today.
-
16 Sep 08
-
13 Aug 08
-
02 Jul 08
Luis MarcoArtículo de Nature que compara la Wikipedia con la Enciclopedia Británica
-
25 May 08
-
08 Apr 08
-
03 Apr 08
-
12 Mar 08
Doug AdamsWikipedia vs Britannica in journal Nature
wikipedia wiki encyclopedia science web2.0 reference internet
-
20 Feb 08
-
11 Dec 07
-
08 Dec 07
-
10 Nov 07
-
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. UPDATE: see details of how the data were collected for this article in the supplementary information.
-
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. UPDATE: see details of how the data were collected for this article in the supplementary information.
-
-
05 May 07
-
20 Feb 07
-
11 Feb 07
Daniel CraigThis was the starting salvo in what will be a long war in the accuracy and reliability of user-generated content over traditional methods (i.e., encyclopaedias).
Wiki research danielcraig web2.0 comparison wikipedia articles
-
29 Nov 06
-
11 Oct 06
-
05 Oct 06
-
28 Sep 06
-
29 Aug 06
-
07 Aug 06
-
24 Jul 06
-
24 Jun 06
-
21 Jun 06
-
08 Apr 06
-
18 Mar 06
-
16 Mar 06
-
13 Mar 06
-
11 Mar 06
-
26 Feb 06
-
10 Feb 06
freerange poultryOne of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource. But it is al
-
robert eOne of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource. But it is al
-
07 Jan 06
-
30 Dec 05
-
22 Dec 05
-
-
21 Dec 05
-
18 Dec 05
Leo LaporteAccording to Nature, Wikipedia is almost as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica, averaging 4 errors per article compared with EB's 3/article.
-
17 Dec 05
-
16 Dec 05
-
-
15 Dec 05
-
y campbellAn expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science — ... revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy w
-
Pelle StenIntressant jämförelse av Wikipedia och Encyclopedia Britannica.
-
David MuirJimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
wikipedia Wiki reference research web2.0 writing LEN Communicate.06 Masterclass2 RenICT ICTShowcase 3r-3w
-
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
-
-
eleventh volumeThe exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.