Britannica vs. Nature, round III
First, a recap.
- Nature said: Wikipedia's science articles are surprisingly accurate -- only slightly less so than Britannica's. (And here are some errors in each; etc.)
- All the Wikipedia errors were corrected within a month or two.
- Britannica issued a salvo against the Nature article demanding a retraction.
- Nature defended the article, saying that because the study was conducted blind, any problems with its criticisms of Britannica entries also apply to its criticisms of Wikipedia entries.
Now Britannica has taken out large ads in the New York Times and Times of London reiterating their previous arguments. Ars has a good summary. (The degree of Britannica's insultedness about being compared to Wikipedia is itself a little insulting to this Wikipedia editor.)