On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Our best position is to acknowledge the errors in
Wikipedia that were
identified by Nature, and to point out that we have worked to correct
them. We needn't mention EB at all. We can hope that similar studies in
the future will be helpful in discover further errors for us to
correct. Admitting errors impresses the reading public more than
defending them.. We need to remember that we are the ones arguing from
a position of strength.
This is probably the best approach to take, to really differentiate
us. EB, in response to a study of their errors, came out by attacking
the study and the journal that sponsored it. We should make sure our
response is praise for the journal - quite honestly, we *love* getting
someone to fact-check for us, and pointing out our inaccuracies.
Whereas EB will suffer more and more with every similar study, we can
only stand to benefit.
Steve