Media gives, media takes away

Some good publicity for a change:

Wikipedia still just as effective as normal encyclopedia. "Nature" has run a formal comparison of the science coverage of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. From the article: 'The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, around three.'"

A little digging reveals the list of errors. And guess what: we are correcting the mistakes and should be done in a few days. Wanna guess how long it takes Britannica? ;p Btw, isn't this template nifty?

In related news, I was suprised to find out that Nature has not only a blog, but a podcast as well. My opnion of this magazine has now improved a lot.

Update: Nature's editorial actually "encourages readers to edit Wikipedia". Now that's a nice and positive attitude. They also call us the "grand experiment" and " free, high-quality global resource". :)