3 ms·
>in error rate I dont have source at moment. But I remember reading a few years ago that wikipedia had fewer errors than most all encyclopedias on average. Th
by Namrog84 7y ago
>in error rate
I dont have source at moment. But I remember reading a few years ago that wikipedia had fewer errors than most all encyclopedias on average.
There is definitely something to be said about consistency and clustering but on average I believe wikipedia is still the best in fewest errors.
- pishpash 7y agoI think it's not error rate, but signal-to-noise ratio. Wikipedia has a lot of noise and is suitable for a critical reader. Old encyclopedias has less quantity but better quality. The whole situation mirrors the old curated internet vs. the new. We still haven't found a situation that is better in every respect between these two extremes.