A Nature Magazine research inquiry into the accuracy of Wikipedia science articles has revealed that their error per word ratio is lower than corresponding entries found in Britannica Encyclopedia. Within 42 scientific expositions investigated, Wikipedia's were found to have an average of four inaccuracies while Britannica's had three. However, a detailed follow-up examination by Wikipedia supporters discovered that the Wiki articles dissected in Nature's study were generally 2.6 times longer than their Britannica counterparts. The study does not attempt to compare readability, grammatical correctness, or the structure of information presented.

Read the article.

The Philoneist Says: It would seem that historical and cultural issues, which are prone to subjectivity, would be more likely to suffer from erroneous representation in an open contributor system than scientific articles founded upon empirical research.