[WikiEN-l] Verbose results from the Britannica vs. Wikipedia paper on nature.com

Thu Dec 22 18:18:30 UTC 2005

Hi,

on http://fftw.org/~stevenj/Nature-reviews.doc, there is now a Microsoft 
Word document describing the "errors" (in a broader sense) found by the 
reviewing persons.

With this list, it is now much easier to deal with these articles. Note 
that the kind of "error" varies from minor factual errors (wrong year) 
to some kind of overall criticism (wrong proportions for competing 
theories).

However, it should be possible to bring the number of "errors" in those 
42 articles down to a much lower number (...and we can introduce brand 
new ones, yeah!).

Thanks for helping out.

The folks at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005 
will be thankful for your efforts in this matter.

At de.wikipedia, I am preparing an FAQ about this review, you might want 
to join or do something in your own language. There was way too much 
misinterpretation done by the press (mostly "in favour" of wikipedia, 
which is not a good thing).

Mathias