<?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"
	>
<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, web 2.0, eResearch...</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: EBlogger</title>
		<link>http://www.craigbellamy.net/2006/08/31/wikipedia-versus-britannica/#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'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 "Crotona" to Britannica's "Crotone".  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 "highly misleading" or "absoultely wrong".  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'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>
