Well, well, well…. according to the BBC website, publishers at Encyclopaedia Britannica have hit back at a study which showed that Wikipedia was as accurate, if not more so, than the esteemed tome.
The study, published in the journal Nature last December, compared scientific entries in the two peadia.
The EB are now claiming that the study was "fatally flawed"…. too little, too late perhaps?
I use Wikipedia regularly… but don’t think I’ve used EB since I was at school.
We had Encarta at school – which I haven’t seen recently, although I’m sure it is still used.
I suppose it doesn’t really matter because Wikipedia is so accessible (not to mention free) that contenders don’t really stand a chance. And poor old Encyclopaedia Britannica is starting to look very outdated – even if their information is more consistently correct.
It’s not even that it is consistently correct…. Nature concluded that accuracy was pretty similiar.