Comments on: Wikipedia versus Britannica http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7339 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7339/comment-page-1#comment-26535 Reader's Write Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:36:22 +0000 #comment-26535 Slashdot had an interesting article on this. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1352207&tid=95&tid=14 The Wikipedia articles were, on average, 2.6 times longer than the Britannica articles, give Wikipedia a lower rate of errors than Britannica. Slashdot had an interesting article on this.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1352207&tid=95&tid=14

The Wikipedia articles were, on average, 2.6 times longer than the Britannica articles, give Wikipedia a lower rate of errors than Britannica.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7339/comment-page-1#comment-26516 Reader's Write Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:39:03 +0000 #comment-26516 how does wiki measure up to a real litmus test against "Funk & Wagnall's"? :P how does wiki measure up to a real litmus test against “Funk & Wagnall’s”? :P

]]>