A recent blind review of selected articles from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica shows a small margin of difference between the two publications when it comes to overall accuracy.
The average entry in Wikipedia contained approximately four errors, in Britannica the average was three. Only eight of what the study calls “serious” errors were found among the 42 reviews, four from Wikipedia and four from Britannica.
The review goes on to comment on what many believe is Wikipedia’s greatest success – the speed at which it’s updated:
“‘People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica,’ Twidale adds. ‘Print encyclopaedias are often set up as the gold standards of information quality against which the failings of faster or cheaper resources can be compared. These findings remind us that we have an 18-carat standard, not a 24-carat one.’”
Ross Mayfield has more.
