Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds...Yet Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great.
Editors at Britannica would not discuss the findings, but say their own studies of Wikipedia have uncovered numerous flaws. "We have nothing against Wikipedia," says Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications at the company's headquarters in Chicago. [yeah right] "But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written. There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."
Anyone want to go 50-50 on some Britannica stock? Anyone? Anyone out there even use Britannica??