Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4
million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as
Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article
published Wednesday.

<>The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering
a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces
criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former
publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director
of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months
had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations
of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature
said in Wednesday’s article, which the scientific journal said was the
first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on
42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in
Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had
three.

More here.