The Wikipedia online encyclopedia might be prone to the occasional mistake, it's still about as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, claims science magazine Nature.
The Nature story puts it the other way around: both are about equally accurate. But as a user I want to know which one to trust and which one to distrust. That's why the recent reports about grave errors popping up in Wikipedia articles concerned me. In today's world, you get measured by your success as much as you get by your failures.
Nature checked 42 entries on scientific topics in both the for-profit Encyclopaedia Britannica and the non-profit Wikipedia. The EB raked in an average of four mistakes per entry, Wikipedia did slightly better with three mistakes.
That's still three and four mistakes too many. It's almost Orwellian: they are both inaccurate. Some are just more in accurate than others.
Cotton seedling freezes to death as Chang'e-4 shuts down for the Moon's 14-day lunar night
Fortnite easily out-earns PUBG, Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Red Dead Redemption 2 in 2018
Meteor showers as a service will be visible for about 100 kilometres in all directions
Saturn's rings only formed in the past 100 million years, suggests analysis of Cassini space probe data
New findings contradict conventional belief that Saturn's rings were formed along with the planet about 4.5 billion years ago