Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lectorog]

(although at least one study showed that Wikipedia had fewer errors than other print encyclopedias)

[citation needed]

[Imp]

(although at least one study showed that Wikipedia had fewer errors than other print encyclopedias)

[citation needed]

Here's a news article about a study done in 2012 which does not support Leo's claim:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm

Here's a news article from 2005 which does support the claim:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

a news article from 2011 which does support the claim... whoops!  Turns out that article was written in 2011 - but it was still about that 2005 study!  gotta be careful about dates of sources ;p  http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2042333_2042334_2042491,00.html

Here's a 2006 actual study, though not published in a widely accepted as being rigorous scientific journal, that does support the claim - http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1413/1331

Here's a new article about study done this year, published this year in a somewhat-to-highly respected journal (as far as I can tell) that doesn't support the claim:  http://media.prsa.org/news-releases/survey-finds-errors-in-wikipedia-articles-have-damaged-the-reputation-of-companies.htm

So the jury is out about the errors thing.  And since Wikipedia is changing every day, with new errors added and some old errors fixed or removed.... it's a very hard thing to measure in absolutes.   A measurement over time might be the best possible near-accurate answer, but even then it's not going to be highly accurate - because accuracy of Wikipedia is an uncontrollable variable that can shift at any instant.

[Angle]

I got together with a friend and we studies for our math final, and I think I did way better than I would have if I hadn't studied with him, so that paid off, at least.