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

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

geni wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:52:09 +1100, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Britannica must be struggling. I recently got a letter offering me a free
>>>Britannica CD-ROM (basic edition) if I subscribed. I don't think that is a
>>>good sign.
>>
>>I thought that was a pretty old offer?  I seem to recall something
>>similar at least five years back.  Could be wrong, of course.
>>
>>I think these days anybody selling access to information is
>>struggling.  Too much of it is free.
> 
> 
> Journals appear to be doing ok.
> 

And they're not always accurate either, *despite* the peer-review
process. Does anyone remember the name of the nanotech researcher who
used the same set of results over and over and over again, for about a
dozen experiments that he'd supposedly done? I believe that /Nature/ was
involved in that one...

-- 
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060323/1abebbef/attachment.pgp