Via Boing Boing:
“However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica’s coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule.
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.”
Yeah. I knew it. Central control is not an inherent improvement in quality. But hey, those of us involved with Free Software already knew that. Next time you read Britannica, remember to treat it with the same skepticism you use with Wikipedia.