Friday, March 24, 2006

Encyclopaedia Britannica rebuts Nature

Encyclopaedia Britannica has issued a lengthy -- and fascinating -- rebuttal to the report in Nature magazine that said that Britannica was not significantly better than Wikipedia.

"Nature’s research was invalid. As we demonstrate below, almost everything about the journal’s investigation, from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and its headline, was wrong and misleading. Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not even in the Encyclopædia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit. We have produced this document to set the record straight, to reassure Britannica’s readers about the quality of our content, and to urge that Nature issue a full and public retraction of the article."

The full rebuttal is here.


At March 24, 2006 1:18 PM , Anonymous Jim Giles said...

Please see Nature's response at

We reject all of Britannica's accusations and are confident that our comparison was fair.

At March 24, 2006 4:31 PM , Blogger Ryan Oakley said...

Wow. I love controversy. In Wikipedia's defense, I think there's a lot to be said for the hive mind.


Post a Comment

<< Home