<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wikipedia versus Britannica</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.craigbellamy.net/2006/08/31/wikipedia-versus-britannica/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.craigbellamy.net/2006/08/31/wikipedia-versus-britannica/</link>
	<description>digital humanities: melbourne australia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:22:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: EBlogger</title>
		<link>http://www.craigbellamy.net/2006/08/31/wikipedia-versus-britannica/comment-page-1/#comment-5036</link>
		<dc:creator>EBlogger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:49:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.craigbellamy.net/2006/08/31/wikipedia-versus-britannica/#comment-5036</guid>
		<description>Actually, Nature&#039;s study, even if accepted at face value, found Wikipedia to be 33% more inaccurate than Britannica, with 4 errors found in Wikipedia for every 3 found in EB. 

And of course, not all errors are created equal.  For instance, a Nature reviewer prefers the spelling &quot;Crotona&quot; to Britannica&#039;s &quot;Crotone&quot;.  The proper English spelling of the name of this Italian town might be a bit hard to pin down, but the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and other sources agree with Britannica on this.   Nature reviewers cited some Wikipedia articles as &quot;highly misleading&quot; or &quot;absoultely wrong&quot;.  Are these problems really comparable?

Although several errors within Britannica were identified by the Nature review (and corrected as fast if not faster than the errors in Wikipedia), Britannica wrote a detailed response to the study, citing profound errors in the study&#039;s premise and methodology.  See http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, Nature&#8217;s study, even if accepted at face value, found Wikipedia to be 33% more inaccurate than Britannica, with 4 errors found in Wikipedia for every 3 found in EB. </p>
<p>And of course, not all errors are created equal.  For instance, a Nature reviewer prefers the spelling &#8220;Crotona&#8221; to Britannica&#8217;s &#8220;Crotone&#8221;.  The proper English spelling of the name of this Italian town might be a bit hard to pin down, but the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and other sources agree with Britannica on this.   Nature reviewers cited some Wikipedia articles as &#8220;highly misleading&#8221; or &#8220;absoultely wrong&#8221;.  Are these problems really comparable?</p>
<p>Although several errors within Britannica were identified by the Nature review (and corrected as fast if not faster than the errors in Wikipedia), Britannica wrote a detailed response to the study, citing profound errors in the study&#8217;s premise and methodology.  See <a href="http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

