On 12/14/05, Jakob Voss jakob.voss@nichtich.de wrote:
As I just wrote in my weblog http://wm.sieheauch.de/ the study is relatively poor. Good for Wikipedia but the sample is quite small and it's vague how the articles were choosen. I bet nature would not have accepted the research as a submited paper.
Indeed. The ct' study last year seemed superior to me (and less head-to-head). I hope the publishing world starts to take accuracy and accountability more seriously, and to both design better studies in this vein, and to improve their standards for revisioning and quality checking.
In my view, precious few modern reference works -- including those pertaining to issues of great world importance -- take themselves or their accuracy seriously enough. I wonder what the review process at Jane's is like...
-- ++SJ