A bit about ISBN numbers (was Re: Minor Marx variant)
J B Krygier
jbkrygier at owu.edu
Sun Jul 23 14:31:43 EDT 2006
On Jul 23, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Scot Kamins wrote:
> From the usually unreliable but occasionally enlightening WIKIPEDIA:
The very prestigious journal Nature did an accuracy assessment
of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica entries and the results...
relatively close in accuracy, considering the EB is written by
paid professionals & experts:
"In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of
scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about
the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important
concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from
each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or
misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica,
More information about the ModLib