3rd Post - Missing Points of View or Information on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_reliability#cite_note-GilesJ2005Internet-0

This article discusses the reliability of Wikipedia and in the second paragraph it states simply: "A study in 2005 suggested that Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate for 'serious errors.'" However it fails to mention all of the problems with that study conducted by Nature science journal, such as its small sample size, limited scope (only dealt with approximately 48 scientific articles), and Encyclopaedia Britannica's subsequent call for the retraction of the paper, arguing that Nature manipulated information and seriously exaggerated the inaccuracies in Encyclopaedia Britannica. It does touch on this later in the article but I feel like there should at least be a link to that part in the introductory paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_wikipedia

Similarly, in the Quality Concerns section of this article, more information can be added to the Nature journal debate. I think the Reliability of Wikipedia article can be cross-linked to this particular section of this article for clarity. In general I found it difficult to find missing information on these sites about Wikipedia because according to the history page of these articles, they are updated very regularly. I believe other topics that aren't accessed as often and aren't directly about the technology itself would be easier to determine missing points of view.