[PW] Grading Wikipedia

[Bye, Dan J]

for ease of reference:

Britannica's trenchant response to Nature's *journalistic* (some people seem to think that anything published in Nature has been through peer review) article:
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

Nature's reply to Britannica's response:
http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf

Not a very edifying episode.

Britannica and Wikipedia are, really entirely different beasts.  Britannica's article are monographs.  Wikipedias are not, at least in principle.  The values of each are quite different.

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: project-wombat-bounces at lists.project-wombat.org 
> [mailto:project-wombat-bounces at lists.project-wombat.org] On 
> Behalf Of Charles Early
> Sent: 03 May 2007 15:57
> To: list at project-wombat.org
> Subject: Re: [PW] Grading Wikipedia
> 
> The original study comparing Wikipedia to the Britannica was 
> published in Nature (v.438, p. 900, 15 December
> 2005):  
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html. 
> Incidentally, this paper links to a Wikipedia article about 
> this and other outside criticisms of Wikipedia (and 
> criticisms of the criticisms, etc.).