Openpedia.org > Test of Wikipedia Lacks Significant Samples
[THE TENSION] Now in the news as a result of that story is the results of Nature.com's test comparing 42 science articles in Wikipedia to matching articles in Encyclopedia Britannica. The news stories about the test paint Wikipedia in a favorable way, much to the glee of bloggers all over the Web.
Some related posts from Technorati and Google.
[Duane Grans log of thoughts] When will wikipedia grow up?: Thirdly, and here you can see that the defense is beginning to run out of steam, one’s attention is drawn to process issues: such as the speed with which errors are fixed, or the fact that looking up a Wikipedia is faster than using an alternative. This line of argument is even weaker than the first: it’s like going to a restaurant for a date - and being pelted with rotten food, thrown at you at high velocity by the waiters.
[Andrewhargadon.com] Harga-blog » Wikis web, the Times glass house”¦: The statements, added by an anonymous editor and since removed, prompted Seigenthaler to write an Op-Ed in USA Today on November 29, in which he stated that “…Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool…[f]or four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin.” Seigenthaler said that he had tried to determine the identity of the anonymous editor but had been unable to do so.
Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, Wikipedia, Openpedia.org