Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia

by edwardy20 • 14 years ago

41 6 14 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

You know, that's a ridiculously short list. I was honestly expecting something much, much longer for a crowdsourced errata-discovery spanning 32 volumes. Kudos to Encyclopedia Britannica on doing a good job.

CJefferson• 14 years ago

I know, it's impressive.

I am sure I, like many people, have found dozens of errors in Wikipedia. I used to try to correct them, but gave up when my changes would get reverted, even with references.

twelvechairs• 14 years ago

I'm sure there must be an equal and inverse list for errors in Wikipedia that are correct in Britannica, and lets not even get started on things explained in Britannica with clarity and brevity where Wikipedia doodles on minutiae.

Seriously - I'm not quite sure what the point of this is, other than as a Wikipedia PR exercise.

bunderbunder2• 14 years ago

And let's not forget that recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education where Wikipedians were obstinately refusing to allow an authority on the subject to fix some errors in an article on the Haymarket Affair, or even to take his input on how the article should be fixed.

Their official position on the subject was, as I remember, to point out that Wikipedia articles aren't meant to represent the facts; they're meant to represent popular conceptions. (Perhaps that's why their articles on health topics tend to be so bad about parroting pseudoscientific hogwash?)

gee_totes• 14 years ago

Yup, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is "Verifiability, Not Truth", which I feel is a sad reflection on our post-modern age.

Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

Related Stories