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  
Britannica.

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,  
respectively."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm







jk



More information about the ModLib mailing list