he stated that Wikipedia often fails to distinguish important from trivial details, and does not provide the best references. He also complained about Wikipedia's lack of "persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose". [ 36 ] Wikipedia's policies on original research , including unpublished synthesis of published data , disallow new analysis and interpretation not found in reliable sources. A web-based survey conducted from December 2005 to May 2006 by Larry Press, a professor of Information Systems at California State University at Dominguez Hills , assessed the "accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles". [ 37 ] Fifty people accepted an invitation to assess an article. Of the fifty, seventy-six percent (76%) agreed or strongly agreed that the Wikipedia article was accurate, and forty-six percent (46%) agreed or strongly agreed that it was complete. Eighteen people compared the article they reviewed to the article on the same topic in the Encyclopædia Britannica . Opinions on accuracy were almost equal between the two encyclopedias (6 favoring Britannica, 7 favoring Wikipedia, 5 stating they were equal), and eleven of the eighteen (61%) found Wikipedia somewhat or substantially more complete, compared to seven of the eighteen (39%) for Britannica. The survey did not attempt random selection of the participants, and it is not clear how the participants were invited. [ 38 ] The German computing magazine c't performed a comparison of Brockhaus Multimedial , Microsoft Encarta , and the German Wikipedia in October 2004: Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In