Interesting Fax
13 views | +0 today
Follow
Interesting Fax
Interesting Facts from the Internet
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by CuriosityKilledtheBandwidth
Scoop.it!

Insect wings shred bacteria to pieces

Insect wings shred bacteria to pieces | Interesting Fax | Scoop.it
Antibacterial 'nanopillars' on cicada wings pull bacterial membranes apart.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by CuriosityKilledtheBandwidth
Scoop.it!

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1]

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5]toxicology,[6]oncology,[7]pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology[10] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012).[9]

Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, so assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[11] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[12] A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views."[13]

CuriosityKilledtheBandwidth's insight:

Before you quote from Wikipedia, you should at least know what you are getting. (Please note this article is self-referential.)

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by CuriosityKilledtheBandwidth
Scoop.it!

Stephen Hawking: 'I Held A Party For Time-Travellers But No One Came'

Stephen Hawking: 'I Held A Party For Time-Travellers But No One Came' | Interesting Fax | Scoop.it
Stephen Hawking recently gave a party - for time travellers. But while he told plenty of people about the date, sent out invitations and waited patiently for them to arrive, no body came.
CuriosityKilledtheBandwidth's insight:

Everyone's a comic...

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by CuriosityKilledtheBandwidth
Scoop.it!

George Washington's Second Inaugural Address

George Washington's Second Inaugural Address | Interesting Fax | Scoop.it
On March 4, 1793, George Washington gave his second inaugural address in the Senate Chamber of Congress Hall in Philadelphia. It remains the shortest inaugural address in history with only 135 words.
more...
No comment yet.