Wikipedia vs Britannica

Hal is grumbling that Dave's report has too many wikipedia references in ti.

Hal: Your article was full of wiki references.

Dave: So?

Hal: But a wiki article can't be authoritative. It's written by unnamed amateurs. Full of mistakes.

Dave: Sometimes. But there was a study published in Nature that showed the typical Wikipedia article had 162 mistakes in 42 articles, compared with 123 in the same 42 Britannica articles. The mistakes were things like facts which weren't quite right, omissions and misleading information.

Hal: See?

Dave: Statistically there's hardly any difference. Web 2.0 collaboration by amateurs can be just about as "authoritative" as a panel of so-called "experts."

Hal: But even so, you can't rely on wikipedia articles. Their quality is uneven.

Dave: Used to be some truth in that. But more experts are getting involved, there's a "multiplier effect" occurring. And the biggest advantage is that when editing is needed in a wiki, it can be done instantly, something that it is not true of a print encyclopedia.