Friday, December 16, 2005

Wiki or Britannia

I've always known Wikipedia is not entirely correct. Even I could point out a lot of articles (especially related to India) and the errors in each. Now, Nature has come up with a study showing Wikipedia is 30% shoddier than Encyclopaedia Britannica.They all seem to concentrate on just the final number, no one puts them in correct context - Apart from the 24% of articles which are equally bad or correct, 69% of Britannica articles are better than Wikipedia articles! What can you expect from an encyclopaedia that can't spell encyclopaedia correctly?
Which?Count% better
I've been using wikipedia for marketing my company's products for quite some time now. I am not the only one!


Jeevan said...

i have searched for many topics, it dint have much information. will try to search in Britania.

Jammy said...

a) It is Britannica and not Britannia

b) Wikipedia is bound to be with errors as it is edited by common users. What you expect of it though is a lot more articles than Britannica