... And Wikipedia gets a break! Finally.
Via both slashdot and digg, I just learnt of a study commissioned by the journal Nature that compared the science-oriented entries in both the wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. A comparison of 42 entries apparently revealed an average of about four errors in the wikipedia, and about three errors in EB.
The Nature article, under the byline of Jim Giles, has this peg:
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.