[Wikipedia-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica Review Tackles Nature Methods

Wed Mar 22 20:27:42 UTC 2006

Haha,

"We do not accept this criticism of our short article on this specific
plant family. We are not a botanical encyclopedia and do not pretend to
be."

Our Encyclopaedia is limited, we don't except the fact that it is limited
as a criticism.

Very telling ^____^

Some fair points, but come on, what was that about spilt milk?

Fran

> Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its
> customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the
> accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica.  A more detailed
> review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error
> and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
>
>
> ================================================>> Because you're a valued
> Britannica customer, I'm writing to you today about
> a subject that has received widespread news coverage - it is a subject
> that's being taken very seriously by all of us at Encyclopædia Britannica
> and one on which we have worked extensively with our editors,
> contributors,
> and advisors for many weeks.
>
> In one of its recent issues, the science journal Nature published an
> article
> that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclopædia Britannica
> with Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of
> knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any subject.
> Wikipedia had recently received attention for its alleged inaccuracies,
> but
> Nature's article claimed that Britannica's science coverage was only
> slightly more accurate than Wikipedia's.
>
> Arriving amid the revelations of vandalism and errors in Wikipedia, such a
> finding was, not surprisingly, big news. Perhaps you even saw the story
> yourself. It's been reported around the world.
>
> Those reports were wrong, however, because Nature's research was invalid.
> As
> our editors and scholarly advisers have discovered by reviewing the
> research
> in depth, almost everything about the Nature's investigation 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.
>
> Since educators and librarians have been among Britannica's closest
> colleagues for many years, I would like to address you personally with an
> explanation of our findings and tell you the truth about the Nature study.
>
> Almost everything Nature did showed carelessness and indifference to basic
> research standards. Their numerous errors and spurious procedures included
> the following:
>
> *       Rearranging, reediting, and excerpting Britannica articles.
> Several
> of the "articles" Nature sent its outside reviewers were only sections of,
> or excerpts from Britannica entries. Some were cut and pasted together
> from
> more than one Britannica article. As a result, Britannica's coverage of
> certain subjects was represented in the study by texts that our editors
> never created, approved or even saw.
> *       Mistakenly identifying inaccuracies. The journal claimed to have
> found dozens of inaccuracies in Britannica that didn't exist.
> *       Reviewing the wrong texts. They reviewed a number of texts that
> were
> not even in the encyclopedia.
> *       Failing to check facts. Nature falsely attributed inaccuracies to
> Britannica based on statements from its reviewers that were themselves
> inaccurate and which Nature's editors failed to verify.
> *       Misrepresenting its findings. Even according to Nature's own
> figures, (which grossly exaggerated the number of inaccuracies in
> Britannica) Wikipedia had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica. Yet
> the
> headline of the journal's report concealed this fact and implied something
> very different.
>
> Britannica also made repeated attempts to obtain from Nature the original
> data on which the study's conclusions were based. We invited Nature's
> editors and management to meet with us to discuss our analysis, but they
> declined.
>
> The Nature study was thoroughly wrong and represented an unfair affront to
> Britannica's reputation.
>
> Britannica practices the kind of sound scholarship and rigorous editorial
> work that few organizations even attempt. This is vital in the age of the
> Internet, when there is so much inappropriate material available. Today,
> having sources like Britannica is more important than ever, with content
> that is reliable, tailored to the age of the user, correlated to
> curriculum,
> and safe for everyone.
>
> Whatever may have prompted Nature to do such careless and sloppy research,
> it's now time for them to uphold their commitment to good science and
> retract the study immediately. We have urged them strongly to do so.
>
> We have prepared a detailed report that describes Britannica's thorough
> (7,000 words) analysis of the Nature study. I invite you to download it
> from
> our Web site at www.eb.com.
>
> =================================================_______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>