No. There was one “study,” by the magazine Nature, that claimed to by systematic, but it was bogus, part of an a broader campaign by the magazine to promote Wikipedia. Even Nature’s own data didn’t find that Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica, and what they did “find” was invalid because everything about the way they did the study waqs wrong.

http://tinyurl.com/bnlcbm

http://tinyurl.com/gwo7l

http://tinyurl.com/c7auds

http://tinyurl.com/csxnra

http://tinyurl.com/coujon

(Disclosure: Nicholas Carr is on Britannica’s editorial board today, but we had no relationship with him at the time he wrote the two posts here.

Tom Panelas
Enyclopaedia Britannica