David Gerard wrote:
The print version has been available on newsstands for over a month. The
Signpost reported on this, including our failure to correct the number
of Encyclopædia Britannica articles, several weeks ago.
Speaking of Britannica, our article about them needs some serious work.
I pointed out some serious problems with the history narrative on the
talk page recently, but nobody has yet done the research to tackle the
problem. The article also suffers from serious pro-Wikipedia bias in
spots. Dealing with the recent Nature study, for example, is it more
neutral to throw in out of the blue that "Wikipedia is almost as
accurate as Britannica" or would something along the lines of
"Britannica remains more accurate than Wikipedia" be better?
--Michael Snow