The information is not accurate and sometimes undermined by poor writing  Wikipedia has become a standard source of reference because it is free and easy to access, not because it provides quality, accurate information. While a 2005 Nature comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica found that the online and print encyclopaedias were both inaccurate, [1] the Nature study itself was badly skewed, and Britannica disputed nearly half the errors or omissions for which it was criticised. [2] On this basis, Wikipedia is not just 30% less accurate than Britannica; it would be two and a half times less reliable. Comedian Stephen Colbert has even publicly skewered Wikipedia for its inaccuracy. [3] In addition, the Nature study took no account of the written quality of the submissions under comparison. All of Britannica’s entries are edited carefully to ensure they are readable, clear and an appropriate length. Much of Wikipedia’s material is a cobbled together from different contributions and lacks clarity. [4] This can mean that even where Wikipedia is accurate readers do not get the wrong information from it. Furthermore, many of its users are students, with too little experience to weigh up the quality of an article.  [1] Orlowski, A. (2005, December 16). Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Register.  [2] Fatally flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. (2006, March). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved December 12, 2010.  [3] Colbert, Stephen. (2006, July 31). The word—Wikiality. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central TV Network.  [4] Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer it all? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The New Yorker