Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
Nature study covered side-by-side comparison of scientific topics
RELATED QUICKVOTE Which source is more reliable? Encyclopedia Britannica Wikipedia or View Results YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Newspaper and Magazines Media or or Create Your Own
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.
The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.
Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.
Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.
Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found -- including misinterpretations of important concepts -- four came from each source, the journal reported.
"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded St. Petersburg, Florida-based Wikipedia in 2001.
Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.
The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.
Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group also is working on ways to make its review process easier to use by people who have less familiarity with computers and the Internet.
Encyclopedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the findings because they haven't seen the data. But spokesman Tom Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're conducted correctly, are valuable "because they tell us things you wouldn't know otherwise."
While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not covered in Britannica.
Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered, Panelas said.
Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone -- amateur or professional, expert or novice -- to submit and edit entries.
Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.
Wikipedia logo
An investigation performed by the scientific review, ''Nature'', on Wikipedia and Britannica science entries, found that the two encyclopedias have similar degrees of accuracy in their content. 

''Nature'' used peer reviewing to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science. In this study, entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopedias without being told which article came from which encyclopaedia. The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told where the information came from.

Among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not significant: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three. In the pairs of articles reviewed, eight serious errors such as misinterpretations of important concepts were detected, four from each encyclopaedia. Reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica.  Additionally, it was found that Wikipedia articles are 2.6 times as long as Britannica articles, meaning that there is a lower error/ommision per word ratio in Wikipedia.

The main criticism about Wikipedia was on its readability, with several reviewers commenting that the articles they read were poorly structured and confusing. 

As well as comparing the two encyclopedias, ''Nature'' surveyed more than 1,000 Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of Wikipedia and 17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to update it. 

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study. "We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he told BBC News.