Related tags:
science + (91)
photography + (70)
biology + (42)
environment + (37)
art + (36)
Animals + (32)
Wildlife + (31)
birds + (21)
bbc + (17)
video + (17)
brokenlink + (16)
History + (16)
insects + (16)
evolution + (15)
documentary + (13)
ecology + (12)
Research + (12)
music + (11)
physics + (11)
earth + (10)
technology + (10)
entomology + (9)
life + (9)
philosophy + (9)
photos + (9)
medicine + (8)
mathematics + (8)
bugs + (8)
Conservation + (8)
beauty + (7)
genetics + (7)
film + (7)
news + (7)
photographs + (7)
math + (6)
culture + (6)
books + (6)
bees + (6)
animal + (6)
alaska + (6)
africa + (6)
nurture + (6)
sex + (6)
space + (6)
trees + (6)
weather + (6)
Wilderness + (6)
ants + (5)
australia + (5)
brain + (5)
climate + (5)
cute + (5)
design + (5)
energy + (5)
economics + (5)
Flash + (5)
fish + (5)
illustration + (5)
human + (5)
health + (5)


Users that often use this tag:
madamjujujive (18)
mediareport (17)
jonson (13)
kliuless (12)
zarq (10)
hortense (10)
lazaruslong (7)
owhydididoit (6)
homunculus (5)
Effigy2000 (5)
Wolfdog (5)
vidur (5)
jquinby (4)
infini (4)
netbros (4)
moonbird (4)
stbalbach (4)
nickyskye (3)
digaman (3)
taz (3)
Gyan (3)
Gator (3)
Laminda (2)
Trurl (2)
nomadicink (2)
Bora Horza Gobuchul (2)
puny human (2)
Matthias Rascher (2)
Obscure Reference (2)
Blasdelb (2)
Fizz (2)
Rhaomi (2)
Greg Nog (2)
OverlappingElvis (2)
Blazecock Pileon (2)
Artw (2)
cog_nate (2)
0bvious (2)
Citizen Premier (2)
jeffburdges (2)
goodnewsfortheinsane (2)
OmieWise (2)
bigmusic (2)
plep (2)
alms (2)
Geo (2)
swift (2)
MiguelCardoso (2)
Tlogmer (2)

Britannica's issued a salvo against Nature's famous "Wikipedia and the EB are comparably error-strewn" analysis. Here (pdf).
posted by Tlogmer on Mar 23, 2006 - 42 comments

The journal Nature: "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries."
Nature had experts review articles from both encyclopedias. (Also, 10% of Nature authors contribute to Wikipedia.)
posted by Tlogmer on Dec 14, 2005 - 31 comments