britannica strikes back

late last year, online community encyclopedia wikipedia suffered some bumps and bruises

nature magazine seemingly came to the rescue with a comparison between wikipedia and the venerable britannica concluding that the wiki reference "comes close to Britannica".

even at that time, the uk reg was skeptical of the analysis. however, encyclopedia britannica comes with a more full-throated response, questioning the methodology of the nature study, to say the least

"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 Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit."

the register chimes in with continued disbelief

We thought it pretty odd, back in December, to discover a popular science journal recommending readers support less accurate information. It's even stranger to find this institution apparently violating fundamental principles of empiricism.
But these are strange times - and high summer for supporters of junk science.[emphasis altered due to formatting limitations]

[note personal opinion: studies and/or papers can be goofy, but still kinda matter]

¶ - nitish @ 8:28 AM