1897:
the terms that did not have any entry in
Britannica (they all appeared in Knowledge (XXG)), and any for which the entries were vastly different in length. Sometimes the lengths were balanced by amalgamating two or three Britannica entries into one coherent piece – for example, 'ethanol' was done this way. We felt this represented 'everything Britannica had to say on the subject' – at least, everything we could find by a quick search of Britannica online, exactly the way a user would approach
229:
that we didn't consider to be significant errors, so we're also writing up an accompanying document to explain which errors we counted, and how we arrived at all the numbers. We're also asking the reviewers if they mind being identified, so we'll name those who give permission. That's all quite a bit of work, especially with Jim being away, but I hope we can send this to you by the end of next week, as well as putting it up (free) on our own website. Thanks for your patience!
2087:
WikiMedia foundation advisers and personnel and the employees of Wikia) do not and never will understand these concepts correctly and with depth. One user in particular, Pinktulip, did demonstrate such intellectual mastery and made a steady single-handed effort during
January 2006 to ensure that another month did not pass before all the corrections were accomplished. Pinktulip also then
433:
words is probably better than 1 error in a 1000 words); and it might make even less sense to mix both categories in an attempt to gauge any bias in favour or against
Knowledge (XXG) (or Britannica) in the Nature experiment. I would therefore be very careful in drawing any conclusions based on the numbers in the table below. --
2082:
were not just syntactical corrections: they required an understanding at the semantic level on these scientifically non-controversial and well-understood topics for which there are, in an absolute and objective sense, right and wrong answers that are not intuitively obvious but require the ability to
2049:
article was a
Featured article at the time of the review and that this article is fortunate to have three PhD chemistry candidates as caretakers (having such expertise involved on an extended basis is a rare situation at Knowledge (XXG)). The remaining articles required a conceptual understanding of
1729:
As a note of caution, since Nature said the lengths of articles they compared were roughly equal, the versions they compared must be different from those whose length we compare here (since our versions are now longer than the EB articles.). This isn't surprising considering the lead time needed to
2016:
While some progress was made in the days immediately after the report came out, the effort stalled as the
Christmas 2005 holiday approached. When one examines the progress made before Christmas, one can see that much of the work was "low hanging fruit" in the form of easy corrections to superficial
1849:
I've emailed the news editor and asked if they could provide the exact article date/time versions that they sent to those 50 experts. That should be useful for figuring out if the errors have already been fixed, and for comparing the versions they sent and the soon-to-be more accurate ones. It's
260:
Of the 42 articles reviewed, 38 were found to have at least one error – Britannica had 40 articles with at least one error. (NOTE: Nature took some of the excerpts for the study from the version of
Britannica for children and youths rather than use the official version for adults. Britannica claims
2086:
For the academically honest, these later corrections were not subject to public opinion or
Knowledge (XXG)'s style of consensus building akin to voting since most people (and probably most Wikipedians, including the Board of Trustees and past and present members of the Arbitration committee, other
1996:
After failing to make an article contribution to the failed
Nupedia proeject, Wales explained years later that even he was intimidated at the thought of submitting an article (in economics: his area of training and experience) to it because was intimidated that experts (rather than amateurs) would
1896:
Each of the reporters that worked on the survey chose 10 to 15 scientific terms that were roughly in their scientific beat – the sorts of things we ourselves would check in an encyclopaedia. We had not looked at any of these entries in either encyclopaedia when we selected them. Then we weeded out
432:
If it seems to make sense to calculate and compare the ratio errors/words, it probably makes less sense to compare the ratio omissions/words (1 omission in a 5000 words article might be considered to be more serious than 1 omission in a 1000 words article on the same topic, whereas 1 error in 5000
228:
In light of the amount of interest, we have decided to make the reviews public as far as possible, although obviously we'll have to edit them to remove the names of the reviewers, any libellous statements etc. The reviewers didn't all respond in the same format, and some of them highlighted points
2028:
Around minute 70 of audio track. March 17, 2006. This further propagates the misconception prompted by the fact that
Knowledge (XXG) has millions of accounts registered. More realistically, Knowledge (XXG) has only a few thousand active editors (or ten thousand if you use a generous definition of
2033:
which lists appromixate 1000 users for a realistic list of contributors who have ever contributed substantial amounts of original quality content (with perhaps a factor of 5X for substantial sub unlisted collaborators). There are about 1000 administrators, and less than 100 other users with more
1773:
Oh @#$ #@, no it's my fault. I miscounted the EB Vesalius article — it's one of the (very few) EB articles which is spread over multiple pages, and I only counted one page. Similarly with the
Woodward article. I'll go back and recheck any others where the imbalance seems to be large.
2045:, one sees the pattern: easy fixes or articles with a small number of errors were addressed at the start of the effort. Many of the easy fixes were biographical or narrative in nature and of a "coffee table book" level of understanding typical of an English major. Note that only the
1753:
article (which is one of the egregious examples where WP is 10 times the word count of EB), and you have to go back to 2002 to get significantly shorter than it is now, which seems unlikely. I find it more likely that the editors simply tossed out any obvious stubs or near-stubs.
2038:, there will be only about 2000 "trusted" users, but all users will be rated with new "reliability" software to be implemented. Of course, one's personal relationship with Jimmy Wales or one's popularity within the community will still be able to override this number.
521:
Your fluff is another person's interesting tidbits. =) Honestly, it's hard to make a quantitative assessment of information content, but if there is a large difference in article length then it is a hint that apples are not being compared to apples.
1978:
In the long run, it seems that the project survived the tagging of all articles in which Nature's experts found errors. I would suggest that the tagging was even constructive and usefu. I note that we tag tens of thousands of articles as part of the
1748:
I find that a bit dubious. By that theory, we should be able to date the review by going back to the last time the articles were comparable to the EB articles (which presumably haven't changed much recently). However, I just checked the
1714:
program. This gives a slight over-estimate because it counts anything surrounded by whitespace as a "word". Britannica counts were taken from Britannica Online. Knowledge (XXG) articles were from 14 December 2005 except where otherwise
1791:
specifically states "All entries were chosen to be approximately the same length in both encyclopaedias. In a small number of cases some material, such as reference lists, was removed to make the lengths of the entries more similar."
556:
review did not consider referencing quality. Nature refers to "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements", so some of the "errors" listed below may be errors of omission in incomplete articles, rather than factual errors.
530:(see below) where the WP article has apparently been almost 5 times longer than EB's for a year now.) The size differences seem large enough that I'm inclined to think that the 30% difference between EB and WP in the
1835:
According to their website (to which my university gives me access), I am searching the full EB. (They also have "student", "concise", and "elementary" versions of EB, but I'm not using those.) I'm not accusing
1937:
1816:
article, even one year ago, was 1108 words or 4.5 times the word count of the EB article. I've searched around EB, and I can't find any huge alternative article on this virus that they could have used instead.
215:
We're trying to see if we can publish the full list of errors found by our reviewers, or least send them to you (and to Britannica if they want). We'll post an update here as soon as we have a firm answer.
2030:
422:
Please post below a table of errors/word statistics, based upon the Nature article and the word counts in the corresponding articles, so that we can see a more controlled comparison of error rates.
89:
36:
1983:
by rank amateurs and teen-agers with éclat. Perhaps our amateurs are simply uncomfortable being reviewed by experts — just as Jimmy Wales finds working with domain experts to be "intimidating".
1993:
March 24, 2006. Quote: "Nupedia’s 7-step peer review process was heavily biased toward Ph.D holders and other alleged "true experts in their fields," and was evidently elaborate and daunting.
1764:
So something is amiss. I somehow doubt Nature compared a 62 word EB article on Robert Burns Woodward to his Knowledge (XXG) 2300 word article. (And found no significant omissions in EB!) -
250:
2112:
Britannica has replied to Nature's article and claim the nature article was itself innacurate in a number of ways. It would probably be good for Wikipedians to check the sources
552:
Note that, for a fair comparison, we shouldn't include tables of contents, external links, "see also", or references — most Britannica articles do not include these, and the
509:
Is this really more controlled? The average WP article has lots of fluff, with no space-pressure to remove same. Errors/omissions-per-article seem a reasonable metric to me.
2029:"active editor"), with varying levels of knowledge and maturity and many of whom contribute little to mainspace articles outside of reverting obvious vandalism. Refer to
2025:
389:
1840:
of dishonesty, but I admit I'm mystified. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought a factor of two was "comparable" length, but a factor of almost 5 seems like a lot.
381:"several Nature reviewers" found the Knowledge (XXG) article they reviewed to be "poorly structured and confusing" — a criticism that the report notes is common among
75:
388:
unnamed information scientists also "point to other problems with article quality, such as undue prominence given to controversial scientific theories" (see
400:
454:
207:
science articles and sent them to experts in the field. The number of "factual errors, critical omissions and misleading statements" were recorded.
2020:
To be clear: it took several weeks before even 50% of the listed corrections were made. Unfortunately, some Knowledge (XXG) commentators like
1990:
2127:
1970:
Putting a "This article has been identified as possibly containing errors" tag on the front page of each and every articles identified by
1902:
So, the criterion was not "vastly different" in length, which would allow e.g. a factor of two difference, and maybe even a factor of 5.
268:
393:
223:
also received a private email from them in response to a request for more information. I hope they don't mind me posting it below:
17:
407:
that Knowledge (XXG)'s strongest suit is the speed at which it can be updated, a factor not considered by the journal's reviewers.
382:
2024:
were under the false impression that "almost all" of the corrections were made within the first 24 hours of the effort. See
1917:
140:
261:
the study is invalid as a result because none of the articles taken from Knowledge (XXG) were "for children or youths.")
2095:
1980:
1850:
possible that they didn't think to check their versions, but they probably did. I'll pass on the reply when it comes. --
1787:
If there winds up being a significant difference, then the explanation is most likely error or a difference in versions.
2050:
chemistry, math, physics and engineering at around the college undergraduate level. The criticisms of articles such as
2035:
1449:
797:
534:
study is washed out by systematic problems, although that of course depends on the type and severity of the errors.
171:
Nature mag cooked Knowledge (XXG) study - Britannica hits back at junk science - By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
697:
356:
2102:
2005:
1960:
1947:
1933:
1906:
1863:
1854:
1844:
1830:
1821:
1799:
1782:
1768:
1758:
1734:
1696:
538:
516:
478:
463:
437:
426:
276:
122:
822:
117:
2134:
1921:
272:
170:
2067:
1826:
Is there an alternative EB website? Are we counting the words in an EB "junior" site? Just a possibility. -
998:
526:
claims that the article lengths were comparable, but I'm finding this hard to reconcile in some cases, e.g.
474:
444:
Britannica displays the word count for each article, doesn't it? At least that part shouldn't take long.
264:
2071:
1730:
select the articles, send them out for review, gather the reviews, and compile and publish the results. -
1373:
1048:
672:
366:
434:
1624:
1398:
2051:
1944:
1793:
100:
80:
2002:
1929:
85:
1998:
2113:
747:
597:
299:
149:
127:
2142:
1974:
seemed to some to be a bit of an overreaction. Others were quite comfortable with the practice.
2125:
1750:
1549:
1223:
289:
2124:
Nature has now issued comments on Britannica's rebuttal, and stands by its original article.
453:
2055:
2021:
1860:
1851:
1599:
772:
195:
177:
47:
1957:
1941:
1813:
1574:
922:
527:
2046:
1953:
1273:
1123:
647:
324:
243:
94:
2099:
1827:
1796:
1765:
1731:
1474:
1073:
1023:
112:
1903:
1841:
1818:
1779:
1755:
622:
535:
513:
492:
423:
220:
150:"Fatally flawed: refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal
200:
132:
1499:
1298:
1173:
897:
722:
445:
56:
2017:
criticisms or where specific corrections were offered by the expert reviewers.
399:
In Knowledge (XXG)'s defense, Michael Twidale, an information scientist at the
1148:
309:
204:
2138:
1711:
1323:
1198:
319:
182:
1718:
Tables of contents, external links, see also, and reference sections were
1248:
185:
2079:
2063:
2059:
1925:
1804:
Note that the references, external links, and "see also" sections were
1704:
1524:
972:
947:
872:
510:
491:
No doubt, but this seems the quickest reasonable statistic to gather.
344:
334:
35:
A complete list of errors with their current status can be found at
2031:
Knowledge (XXG):List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations
458:
2075:
1424:
1348:
1098:
847:
371:
361:
329:
1966:
Tagging every Nature-reviewed articles w/errors an overreaction?
1812:
of my counts. I still find discrepancies I can't explain. Our
1708:
251:
Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2005-12-19/Nature study
90:
Knowledge (XXG):External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors
59:
37:
Knowledge (XXG):External peer review/Nature December 2005/Errors
414:
the detailed reviewer reports are now available (see above).
2091:
of the completion of the overall effort on 25 January 2006.
1956:
is now tended by a few PhD Chemistry candidates and is FA.--
1936:
status with the latter being a former featured article (see
282:
The following articles had the highest number of errors:
2088:
2042:
390:
Knowledge (XXG):Guidelines for controversial articles
76:
Nature blog: Comparing Knowledge (XXG) and Britannica
472:
You'd think that not all words are created equal. —
1703:Word counts were computed by pasting text from the
1940:, though there is virtually no discussion there).
377:Nature's special report also noted the following:
352:The following articles had no errors highlighted:
238:: The reviewer reports are now available on the
2026:Web of Ideas: The Authority of Knowledge (XXG)
1920:status, and none have undergone our internal
8:
2098:is an ongoing problem at Knowledge (XXG).--
401:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
2116:and note needed changes in our articles.
88:(pdf) - link dead, contents available at
81:"Internet encyclopaedias go head to head"
562:
396:for guidelines related to this problem);
178:Britannica 'still rules' over web rival
67:Internet encyclopedias go head to head
2083:master technical concepts and facts.
394:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
7:
1991:The Trends Underlying Enterprise 2.0
1887:From the editors (see supplementary
1778:: counts should be corrected now.)
159:. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 2006
18:Knowledge (XXG):External peer review
1916:None of the articles reviewed have
1859:No reply. Ah, well. We'll see. --
1999:Interview: Knowledge to the people
24:
2096:Knowledge (XXG):Expert retention
1981:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog
452:
2103:20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2034:elevated access. Also, in the
1:
1948:19:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
1907:17:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1864:19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
1855:23:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
1845:08:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
1831:08:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
1822:07:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
1800:07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
1783:07:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
1769:06:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
1759:06:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
1735:06:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
539:08:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
517:07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
479:03:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
464:03:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
427:02:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
277:00:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2043:status at the start of 2006
2006:22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1961:22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1450:Royal Greenwich Observatory
798:Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan
438:20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
249:This review was covered at
2159:
698:Australopithecus africanus
418:Errors per word comparison
357:Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
571:
568:
565:
95:List of articles reviewed
2119:
1924:process. Two articles,
246:format. See above URL.
133:Scientific American blog
2068:Field effect transistor
1695:* - Articles marked as
999:Field effect transistor
86:Nature reviewer reports
2072:Kinetic isotope effect
1625:Woodward, Robert Burns
1374:Punctuated equilibrium
1049:Kinetic isotope effect
383:information scientists
367:Punctuated equilibrium
108:Related news articles:
2107:
673:Archimedes' principle
2089:informed Jimmy Wales
2052:Archimedes Principle
2041:If one examines the
145:Britannica rebuttal
2135:made a presentation
2012:Correction progress
1930:Pythagorean theorem
1399:Pythagoras' theorem
2108:Britannica's Reply
1904:—Steven G. Johnson
1842:—Steven G. Johnson
1819:—Steven G. Johnson
1780:—Steven G. Johnson
1756:—Steven G. Johnson
748:Cambrian explosion
598:Acheulean industry
536:—Steven G. Johnson
493:—Steven G. Johnson
424:—Steven G. Johnson
320:Acheulean industry
300:Cambrian explosion
231:(15 December 2005)
210:From their blog:
2120:Nature's Response
1751:Vesalius, Andreas
1722:from word counts.
1707:browser into the
1699:
1692:
1691:
1550:Vesalius, Andreas
1224:Mendeleev, Dmitry
267:comment added by
2150:
2114:Britannica gives
2056:Dmitri Mendeleev
2022:David Weinberger
1918:featured article
1694:
1600:Wolfram, Stephen
773:Cavity magnetron
572:Knowledge (XXG)
563:
477:
475:Ambush Commander
461:
457:
456:
449:
290:Dmitry Mendeleev
279:
167:
165:
164:
158:
101:Nature editorial
2158:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2122:
2110:
2036:new master plan
2014:
1968:
1914:
1891:report above):
1814:West Nile virus
1575:West Nile Virus
528:West Nile virus
473:
459:
451:
447:
420:
262:
258:
201:Knowledge (XXG)
162:
160:
156:
148:
139:other links at
32:
30:(December 2005)
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2156:
2154:
2121:
2118:
2109:
2106:
2047:Aldol reaction
2013:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2003:76.204.176.148
2001:31 Jan 2007.--
1994:
1976:
1967:
1964:
1954:Aldol reaction
1913:
1912:Article status
1910:
1900:
1899:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1857:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1724:
1723:
1716:
1690:
1689:
1686:
1683:
1680:
1677:
1674:
1671:
1667:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1658:
1656:
1653:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1633:
1630:
1627:
1621:
1620:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1596:
1595:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1577:
1571:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1561:
1558:
1555:
1552:
1546:
1545:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1533:
1530:
1527:
1521:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1505:
1502:
1496:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1471:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1446:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1421:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1402:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1370:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1345:
1344:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1295:
1294:
1291:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1274:Neural network
1270:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1226:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1145:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1124:Lomborg, Bjorn
1120:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1001:
995:
994:
991:
988:
985:
982:
979:
976:
969:
968:
965:
962:
959:
956:
953:
950:
944:
943:
940:
937:
934:
931:
928:
925:
919:
918:
915:
912:
909:
906:
903:
900:
894:
893:
890:
887:
884:
881:
878:
875:
869:
868:
865:
862:
859:
856:
853:
850:
844:
843:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
825:
819:
818:
815:
812:
809:
806:
803:
800:
794:
793:
790:
787:
784:
781:
778:
775:
769:
768:
765:
762:
761:702 (13 Dec.)
759:
756:
753:
750:
744:
743:
740:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
719:
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
694:
693:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
669:
668:
665:
662:
659:
656:
653:
650:
648:Aldol reaction
644:
643:
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
619:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
594:
593:
590:
587:
584:
581:
578:
574:
573:
570:
567:
560:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
484:
483:
482:
481:
467:
466:
441:
440:
435:83.180.100.151
419:
416:
409:
408:
397:
386:
375:
374:
369:
364:
359:
350:
349:
348:
347:
339:
338:
337:
332:
327:
325:Neural network
322:
314:
313:
312:
304:
303:
302:
294:
293:
292:
257:
254:
244:Microsoft Word
233:
232:
218:
217:
192:
191:
190:
189:
173:
168:
143:
137:
136:
135:
130:
125:
120:
115:
105:
104:
103:
98:
92:
83:
78:
68:
62:
51:
40:
39:
31:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2155:
2146:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2131:
2129:
2126:
2117:
2115:
2105:
2104:
2101:
2097:
2092:
2090:
2084:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2048:
2044:
2039:
2037:
2032:
2027:
2023:
2018:
2011:
2007:
2004:
2000:
1995:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1975:
1973:
1965:
1963:
1962:
1959:
1955:
1950:
1949:
1946:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1911:
1909:
1908:
1905:
1898:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1890:
1865:
1862:
1858:
1856:
1853:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1829:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1820:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1781:
1777:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1767:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1757:
1752:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1736:
1733:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1698:
1697:good articles
1687:
1684:
1681:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1668:
1665:
1662:
1659:
1657:
1654:
1651:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1637:
1634:
1631:
1628:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1612:
1609:
1606:
1603:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1590:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1578:
1576:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1565:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1481:
1478:
1476:
1475:Royal Society
1473:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1412:
1409:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1389:
1386:
1383:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1200:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1074:Kin selection
1072:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1025:
1024:Haber process
1022:
1021:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
996:
992:
989:
986:
983:
980:
977:
974:
971:
970:
966:
963:
960:
957:
954:
951:
949:
946:
945:
941:
938:
935:
932:
929:
926:
924:
921:
920:
916:
913:
910:
907:
904:
901:
899:
896:
895:
891:
888:
885:
882:
879:
876:
874:
871:
870:
866:
863:
860:
857:
854:
851:
849:
846:
845:
841:
838:
835:
832:
829:
826:
824:
821:
820:
816:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
799:
796:
795:
791:
788:
785:
782:
779:
776:
774:
771:
770:
766:
763:
760:
757:
754:
751:
749:
746:
745:
741:
738:
735:
732:
729:
726:
724:
721:
720:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
699:
696:
695:
691:
688:
685:
682:
679:
676:
674:
671:
670:
666:
663:
660:
657:
654:
651:
649:
646:
645:
641:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
624:
621:
620:
616:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
599:
596:
595:
591:
588:
585:
582:
579:
576:
575:
566:Article name
564:
561:
558:
555:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
520:
519:
518:
515:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
494:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
480:
476:
471:
470:
469:
468:
465:
462:
455:
450:
443:
442:
439:
436:
431:
430:
429:
428:
425:
417:
415:
413:
406:
402:
398:
395:
391:
387:
384:
380:
379:
378:
373:
370:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
355:
354:
353:
346:
343:
342:
340:
336:
333:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
317:
315:
311:
308:
307:
305:
301:
298:
297:
295:
291:
288:
287:
285:
284:
283:
280:
278:
274:
270:
269:64.134.40.134
266:
255:
253:
252:
247:
245:
242:web site, in
241:
237:
230:
226:
225:
224:
222:
216:
213:
212:
211:
208:
206:
202:
198:
197:
187:
184:
180:
179:
174:
172:
169:
155:
153:
147:
146:
144:
142:
138:
134:
131:
129:
126:
124:
123:Aljazeera.net
121:
119:
118:Business Week
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
106:
102:
99:
96:
93:
91:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
73:
72:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
55:
52:
50:
49:
45:
42:
41:
38:
34:
33:
29:
26:
19:
2132:
2123:
2111:
2093:
2085:
2040:
2019:
2015:
1986:References:
1985:
1977:
1971:
1969:
1951:
1934:good article
1915:
1901:
1895:
1888:
1886:
1837:
1809:
1805:
1788:
1775:
1747:
1719:
1693:
623:Agent Orange
592:Errors/word
583:Errors/word
559:
553:
551:
531:
523:
421:
411:
410:
404:
376:
351:
281:
263:— Preceding
259:
248:
239:
235:
234:
227:
219:
214:
209:
194:
193:
176:
161:. Retrieved
151:
107:
70:
64:
53:
46:
43:
27:
1942:violet/riga
1922:peer review
1861:Mr. Billion
1852:Mr. Billion
1500:Synchrotron
1419:0.00052659
1299:Nobel prize
1174:Mayr, Ernst
1143:0.00066622
933:0.00074963
898:Dirac, Paul
723:Bethe, Hans
586:Word count
577:Word count
569:Britannica
175:James Bone
57:14 December
2143:2006-08-04
2133:Jim Giles
2094:Note that
1997:review it.
1958:SupperBird
1952:Note that
1688:0.0035798
1679:0.0054106
1644:0.0012931
1619:0.0035778
1610:0.0042105
1594:0.0037879
1585:0.0040816
1569:0.0034072
1560:0.0021505
1544:0.0047978
1535:0.0068611
1519:0.0012579
1510:0.0025974
1494:0.0023015
1469:0.0093985
1435:0.0044964
1410:0.0014535
1384:0.0010604
1368:0.0044220
1359:0.0063425
1343:0.0043384
1334:0.0095847
1318:0.0024366
1309:0.0097800
1293:0.0056772
1284:0.0035907
1268:0.0038536
1234:0.0061256
1209:0.0065789
1193:0.0039841
1168:0.0056980
1159:0.0020877
1149:Lymphocyte
1134:0.0019305
1109:0.0085960
1093:0.0074257
1084:0.0032503
1068:0.0035149
1059:0.0047619
1043:0.0037665
1034:0.0041494
1009:0.0051020
993:0.0019004
984:0.0095238
967:0.0085106
942:0.0049566
917:0.0086207
892:0.0066964
883:0.0053476
867:0.0029603
858:0.0046802
842:0.0036417
833:0.0033841
792:0.0017841
783:0.0050761
742:0.0010971
733:0.0015198
717:0.0020161
708:0.0042553
692:0.0032949
683:0.0057143
667:0.0045455
642:0.0015748
310:Paul Dirac
296:11 errors
286:19 errors
205:Britannica
163:2006-03-23
2139:Wikimania
2128:(archive)
1485:0.014423
1460:0.012766
1324:Pheromone
1259:0.010989
1243:0.016755
1218:0.010676
1199:Meliaceae
958:0.028090
908:0.011947
808:0.010959
758:0.019268
658:0.030769
617:0.016787
341:5 errors
316:7 errors
306:9 errors
199:compared
183:The Times
128:USA Today
2100:Simongar
1828:Nunh-huh
1806:excluded
1797:Nunh-huh
1766:Nunh-huh
1732:Nunh-huh
1720:excluded
1249:Mutation
1018:0.00322
633:0.00793
265:unsigned
256:Findings
186:March 25
141:Wikinews
113:BBC News
2080:Thyroid
2064:Epitaxy
2060:Colloid
1932:, have
1926:Ethanol
1705:Firefox
1685:3.8571
1682:1077.5
1676:2.9286
1673:541.26
1525:Thyroid
973:Ethanol
948:Epitaxy
873:Colloid
767:0.0157
589:Errors
580:Errors
412:Update:
403:, told
345:Ethanol
335:Thyroid
44:Source:
1972:Nature
1889:Nature
1838:Nature
1789:Nature
1776:Update
1715:noted.
1660:45254
1652:22733
1649:Total
608:0.002
554:Nature
532:Nature
524:Nature
405:Nature
240:Nature
236:Update
196:Nature
152:Nature
65:Title:
48:Nature
28:Nature
2076:Prion
1808:from
1670:Mean
1638:2320
1588:1320
1563:1174
1538:1459
1513:1590
1438:2060
1429:1112
1425:Quark
1413:1899
1387:1265
1362:1583
1349:Prion
1312:2052
1287:1233
1262:1557
1237:1134
1228:1306
1137:1501
1099:Lipid
987:2631
927:1334
923:Dolly
911:1044
861:1689
848:Cloud
836:1373
786:1121
736:1823
636:1270
372:Quark
362:Lipid
330:Prion
157:(PDF)
97:(doc)
71:URLs:
54:Date:
16:<
1938:here
1928:and
1795:. -
1709:Unix
1663:162
1655:123
1629:873
1613:559
1604:475
1579:245
1554:930
1529:583
1504:770
1488:869
1479:416
1463:532
1454:235
1404:688
1378:943
1353:473
1337:461
1328:313
1303:409
1278:557
1253:728
1212:281
1203:152
1187:753
1178:357
1162:351
1153:479
1128:518
1112:676
1103:349
1087:404
1078:923
1062:569
1053:210
1037:531
1028:241
1012:933
1003:588
978:315
961:235
952:178
936:807
902:837
886:896
877:561
852:641
827:591
811:417
802:365
777:394
752:519
727:658
711:496
702:235
686:607
677:350
661:660
652:130
627:252
611:417
602:500
511:+sj
392:and
273:talk
203:and
188:2006
60:2005
2141:on
2137:at
2074:,
1945:(t)
1810:all
1240:19
905:10
823:CJD
764:11
755:10
181:in
2145:.
2130:.
2078:,
2070:,
2066:,
2062:,
2058:,
2054:,
1712:wc
1641:3
1635:0
1632:0
1616:2
1607:2
1591:5
1582:1
1566:4
1557:2
1541:7
1532:4
1516:2
1507:2
1491:2
1482:6
1466:5
1457:3
1444:0
1441:0
1432:5
1416:1
1407:1
1401:*
1393:0
1390:0
1381:1
1365:7
1356:3
1340:2
1331:3
1315:5
1306:4
1290:7
1281:2
1265:6
1256:8
1231:8
1215:3
1206:1
1190:3
1184:0
1181:0
1165:2
1156:1
1140:1
1131:1
1118:0
1115:0
1106:3
1090:3
1081:3
1065:2
1056:1
1040:2
1031:1
1015:3
1006:3
990:5
981:3
975:*
964:2
955:5
939:4
930:1
914:9
889:6
880:3
864:5
855:3
839:5
830:2
817:0
814:0
805:4
789:2
780:2
739:2
730:1
714:1
705:1
689:2
680:2
664:3
655:4
639:2
630:2
614:7
605:1
448:ᓛᖁ
275:)
1774:(
522:(
514:+
460:ᑐ
446:‣
385:;
271:(
221:I
166:.
154:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.