WIKIPEDIA vs ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

I found this surprising & fascinating snippet of information, while browsing through some old blog posts (as far as 2006) of Jennifer Rice, founder & chief strategist of Fruitful Strategy based in San Francisco:

"Based on 42 articles (on science topics) reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found - including misinterpretations of important concepts - four came from each source, the journal reported.

Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone - amateur or professional, expert or novice - to submit and edit entries."

The foregoing information is originally based on a CNN report, which I am unable to trace.

Come to think of it, Wikipedia is not that bad after all , but I reckon we still got to be cautious in using it as a primary source of information.