Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
==================================================
Because you're a valued Britannica customer, I'm writing to you today about
a subject that has received widespread news coverage - it is a subject that's being taken very seriously by all of us at Encyclopædia Britannica and one on which we have worked extensively with our editors, contributors, and advisors for many weeks.
In one of its recent issues, the science journal Nature published an article that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclopædia Britannica with Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any subject. Wikipedia had recently received attention for its alleged inaccuracies, but Nature's article claimed that Britannica's science coverage was only slightly more accurate than Wikipedia's.
Arriving amid the revelations of vandalism and errors in Wikipedia, such a finding was, not surprisingly, big news. Perhaps you even saw the story yourself. It's been reported around the world.
Those reports were wrong, however, because Nature's research was invalid. As our editors and scholarly advisers have discovered by reviewing the research in depth, almost everything about the Nature's investigation was wrong and misleading. 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 Encyclopædia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit.
Since educators and librarians have been among Britannica's closest colleagues for many years, I would like to address you personally with an explanation of our findings and tell you the truth about the Nature study.
Almost everything Nature did showed carelessness and indifference to basic research standards. Their numerous errors and spurious procedures included the following:
* Rearranging, reediting, and excerpting Britannica articles. Several of the "articles" Nature sent its outside reviewers were only sections of, or excerpts from Britannica entries. Some were cut and pasted together from more than one Britannica article. As a result, Britannica's coverage of certain subjects was represented in the study by texts that our editors never created, approved or even saw. * Mistakenly identifying inaccuracies. The journal claimed to have found dozens of inaccuracies in Britannica that didn't exist. * Reviewing the wrong texts. They reviewed a number of texts that were not even in the encyclopedia. * Failing to check facts. Nature falsely attributed inaccuracies to Britannica based on statements from its reviewers that were themselves inaccurate and which Nature's editors failed to verify. * Misrepresenting its findings. Even according to Nature's own figures, (which grossly exaggerated the number of inaccuracies in Britannica) Wikipedia had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica. Yet the headline of the journal's report concealed this fact and implied something very different.
Britannica also made repeated attempts to obtain from Nature the original data on which the study's conclusions were based. We invited Nature's editors and management to meet with us to discuss our analysis, but they declined.
The Nature study was thoroughly wrong and represented an unfair affront to Britannica's reputation.
Britannica practices the kind of sound scholarship and rigorous editorial work that few organizations even attempt. This is vital in the age of the Internet, when there is so much inappropriate material available. Today, having sources like Britannica is more important than ever, with content that is reliable, tailored to the age of the user, correlated to curriculum, and safe for everyone.
Whatever may have prompted Nature to do such careless and sloppy research, it's now time for them to uphold their commitment to good science and retract the study immediately. We have urged them strongly to do so.
We have prepared a detailed report that describes Britannica's thorough (7,000 words) analysis of the Nature study. I invite you to download it from our Web site at www.eb.com.
==================================================
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
Where?
-- geni
On 3/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
Where?
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
On 3/22/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
Where?
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
Heh, some of the Britannica responses are quite amusing:
"Article: Pheromone Reviewer comment: One might get the impression that a pheromone is a substance, while it usually consists of several in a blend. Britannica response: We do not accept this criticism. This article does not even discuss the composition of pheromones."
What exactly is the article supposed to discuss, then?
Kirill Lokshin
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
This is pretty important and from all I've read so far, one could be in the situation to support Britannicas call to Nature to retract the story and make a better one.
Mathias
"Mathias Schindler" wrote
This is pretty important and from all I've read so far, one could be in the situation to support Britannicas call to Nature to retract the story and make a better one.
Yes, it's interesting. I thought at the time of the Nature article that the main point was not that Wikipedia did well, but that B did badly.
Anyway, I'm sure we want to console the EB folks. After all, we're all in the same business. We should send them some pleasant message, sympathising with the unpleasant, picky results of that survey. Something short and to the point, like the words "watch" and "Swiss".
Charles
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
Those of you who are interested in the topic should come to #wikipedia-britannica on Freenode IRC.
We might be able to form an response to this which could be productive.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
Those of you who are interested in the topic should come to #wikipedia-britannica on Freenode IRC.
We might be able to form an response to this which could be productive.
Is a response necessary? EB's response to the article is like so much spin, and I'm inclined to feel sorry for them. Being drawn into a flame war with them would be unseemly. The tone of their study seemed more focussed on defending their credibility, and they have a right to do that.
Our best position is to acknowledge the errors in Wikipedia that were identified by Nature, and to point out that we have worked to correct them. We needn't mention EB at all. We can hope that similar studies in the future will be helpful in discover further errors for us to correct. Admitting errors impresses the reading public more than defending them.. We need to remember that we are the ones arguing from a position of strength.
Ec
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Is a response necessary?
only if journalists start emailing us about this. And still, there is no need for a response, as Britannica is showing in an astonishing way:
"Britannica refused comment at the time and did formally respond until this week, more than three months later.
Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas declined comment Thursday beyond the article on its Web site."
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/03/23/ap2618333.html
Our best position is to acknowledge the errors in Wikipedia that were identified by Nature, and to point out that we have worked to correct them.
that is actually being done: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Press/2006/03/22...
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Our best position is to acknowledge the errors in Wikipedia that were identified by Nature, and to point out that we have worked to correct them. We needn't mention EB at all. We can hope that similar studies in the future will be helpful in discover further errors for us to correct. Admitting errors impresses the reading public more than defending them.. We need to remember that we are the ones arguing from a position of strength.
This is probably the best approach to take, to really differentiate us. EB, in response to a study of their errors, came out by attacking the study and the journal that sponsored it. We should make sure our response is praise for the journal - quite honestly, we *love* getting someone to fact-check for us, and pointing out our inaccuracies. Whereas EB will suffer more and more with every similar study, we can only stand to benefit.
Steve
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Those reports were wrong, however, because Nature's research was invalid. As our editors and scholarly advisers have discovered by reviewing the research in depth, almost everything about the Nature's investigation was wrong and misleading. 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 Encyclopædia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit.
I'm surprised how vague this is. Later he complains that the source data is not available. But here he just refers to "dozens of inaccuracies"...hmm.
Rearranging, reediting, and excerpting Britannica articles. Severalof the "articles" Nature sent its outside reviewers were only sections of, or excerpts from Britannica entries. Some were cut and pasted together from more than one Britannica article. As a result, Britannica's coverage of certain subjects was represented in the study by texts that our editors never created, approved or even saw.
That seems like a lot of hot air over a small issue. Claiming that their editors "never created, approved or even saw" the particular compilation is really piling on strong words to make an impact. Whereas what they're actually denying is much weaker. Kind of like "I did *not* have sexual relations with that woman..."
Mistakenly identifying inaccuracies. The journal claimed to havefound dozens of inaccuracies in Britannica that didn't exist.
Well, I've had a look at some of their claimed inaccurate inaccuracies and I'm not that sure. It's very much "No it's not / Yes it is".
Reviewing the wrong texts. They reviewed a number of texts that werenot even in the encyclopedia.
Do they get more specific than this? "A number" probably turns out to be 3. Or existed in some previous version of the encyclopaedia that was outdated 4 days before the survey. I'm suspicious.
Failing to check facts. Nature falsely attributed inaccuracies toBritannica based on statements from its reviewers that were themselves inaccurate and which Nature's editors failed to verify.
Well, details, please.
Misrepresenting its findings. Even according to Nature's ownfigures, (which grossly exaggerated the number of inaccuracies in Britannica) Wikipedia had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica. Yet the headline of the journal's report concealed this fact and implied something very different.
I vaguely recall they had some sort of weird logarithmic scale, so I would tend to agree with this one. But actually...wasn't the final number something like "4 errors per article compared to 3 errors per article"? Whether 33% more is a lot or not is purely subjective. I would definitely say it's the same ballpark.
Britannica also made repeated attempts to obtain from Nature the original data on which the study's conclusions were based. We invited Nature's editors and management to meet with us to discuss our analysis, but they declined.
If true, that's very poor on Nature's part.
Whatever may have prompted Nature to do such careless and sloppy research, it's now time for them to uphold their commitment to good science and retract the study immediately. We have urged them strongly to do so.
Uh, a commitment to good science would be publishing the data and their method so that people can attempt to reproduce it. I tend to agree that Nature's method was optimistic. Surely more than one reviewer for each article shoul have been appointed...even better would have been an open forum where many experts could pick through each article and argue amongst themselves.
We have prepared a detailed report that describes Britannica's thorough (7,000 words) analysis of the Nature study. I invite you to download it from our Web site at www.eb.com.
A lot of it seems to be "We reject this criticism. We have asked our adviser, and he says we're right." Not exactly convincing stuff. Particularly when they complain that the original study failed to cite sources - and with few exceptions, the EB rebuttal doesn't either.
Example: "Britannica response: We do not accept these criticisms (which are really just one criticism, not two). We have published a revision of this article that retains the emphasis on supersaturation rather than the transitional stage of saturation."
By this standard, Wikipedia should reply to nature and say "Thanks for the criticisms. Our community rejects them. We stand by our original version". However, we didn't - as I understand, we actually took the criticisms on board and worked with them. Which kind of demonstrates the real strength in Wikipedia. Instead of simply "not accepting" every criticism (as EB does 22 times in their response) to protect our good name, we, without ego, simply make it better.
I also sort of feel that as an attempted model of good science or whatever, EB should not be attacking the entire Nature study as totally "without merit".
Sorry I can't join the IRC chat.
Steve
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Britannica also made repeated attempts to obtain from Nature the original
data on which the study's conclusions were based. We invited Nature's
editors and management to meet with us to discuss our analysis, but they declined.
If true, that's very poor on Nature's part.
Well, I have read the detailed analyses of errors, with the names of the reviewers, in a document a link to which was posted to this list. I wonder what more they wanted.
There's an odd idea in the EB document. They had 'peer review', except that of course it wasn't: those reviewing would for the most part be of greater academic distinction than those writing the articles. Now they want to second-guess all that. But not by getting a 'better' peer review done. More by meeting with Nature, and trying for retractions.
Rather short-sighted, in fact, in that alienating Nature probably is more likely to make it repeat the exercise.
Charles
On 3/22/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, I have read the detailed analyses of errors, with the names of the reviewers, in a document a link to which was posted to this list. I wonder what more they wanted.
They wanted access to the actual documents constructed by Nature, on which it based its review. Apparently, Nature cobbled together bits from various different articles to produce "comparable" articles. Wanting access to those new documents seems reasonable to me.
There's an odd idea in the EB document. They had 'peer review', except that of course it wasn't: those reviewing would for the most part be of greater academic distinction than those writing the articles. Now they want to second-guess all that. But not by getting a 'better' peer review done. More by meeting with Nature, and trying for retractions.
Yes, I don't believe that scientific studies are generally "retracted". If they were really science-friendly, they would be asking someone else to repeat the experiment, or at the least review it. Rather than simply attacking it themselves and asking nicely for it to be buried under the carpet.
Rather short-sighted, in fact, in that alienating Nature probably is more likely to make it repeat the exercise.
Yes. "We love nature. That's why we're suing the World Nature Fund..."
Steve
On 3/23/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
By this standard, Wikipedia should reply to nature and say "Thanks for the criticisms. Our community rejects them. We stand by our original version". However, we didn't - as I understand, we actually took the criticisms on board and worked with them. Which kind of demonstrates the real strength in Wikipedia. Instead of simply "not accepting" every criticism (as EB does 22 times in their response) to protect our good name, we, without ego, simply make it better.
This has already been suggested, but we should invite EB to organise another study, to be conducted by a journal of their choice. Perhaps they can even contribute to the method (multiple reviewers for each comparison would be a good inclusion), on the condition that the results of the study are published at the same time as the list of errors. Then we can fix them within days, just like with the Nature review, and put that fact out in a press release.
I'm sure they have real concerns, and I'm also sure that there are probably more errors in WP than in EB. The point is that WP can fix its errors far more quickly than traditional encyclopaedias, and we should use this opportunity to show that.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
"Stephen Bain" wrote
I'm sure they have real concerns, and I'm also sure that there are probably more errors in WP than in EB. The point is that WP can fix its errors far more quickly than traditional encyclopaedias, and we should use this opportunity to show that.
It would be cool to manoeuvre EB into fact-checking our articles. With enough EBs, any error is shallow, to coin a phrase.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
"Stephen Bain" wrote
I'm sure they have real concerns, and I'm also sure that there are probably more errors in WP than in EB. The point is that WP can fix its errors far more quickly than traditional encyclopaedias, and we should use this opportunity to show that.
It would be cool to manoeuvre EB into fact-checking our articles. With enough EBs, any error is shallow, to coin a phrase.
Hrm...
How about a bounty system for errors? Provided you can back up your claim, you get some reward...
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
- Rearranging, reediting, and excerpting Britannica articles. Several
of the "articles" Nature sent its outside reviewers were only sections of, or excerpts from Britannica entries. Some were cut and pasted together from more than one Britannica article. As a result, Britannica's coverage of certain subjects was represented in the study by texts that our editors never created, approved or even saw.
That seems like a lot of hot air over a small issue. Claiming that their editors "never created, approved or even saw" the particular compilation is really piling on strong words to make an impact. Whereas what they're actually denying is much weaker. Kind of like "I did *not* have sexual relations with that woman..."
Sexual relations between WP and Dame Britannica?? What would the children look like? :-)
Whatever may have prompted Nature to do such careless and sloppy research, it's now time for them to uphold their commitment to good science and retract the study immediately. We have urged them strongly to do so.
Uh, a commitment to good science would be publishing the data and their method so that people can attempt to reproduce it. I tend to agree that Nature's method was optimistic. Surely more than one reviewer for each article shoul have been appointed...even better would have been an open forum where many experts could pick through each article and argue amongst themselves.
Yes, but peer review has its problems, and that whole process may need to become more wiki-like.
We have prepared a detailed report that describes Britannica's thorough (7,000 words) analysis of the Nature study. I invite you to download it from our Web site at www.eb.com.
A lot of it seems to be "We reject this criticism. We have asked our adviser, and he says we're right." Not exactly convincing stuff. Particularly when they complain that the original study failed to cite sources - and with few exceptions, the EB rebuttal doesn't either.
Example: "Britannica response: We do not accept these criticisms (which are really just one criticism, not two). We have published a revision of this article that retains the emphasis on supersaturation rather than the transitional stage of saturation."
I didn't read their response in great detail, but did anyone find even a single criticism that EB accepted
I also sort of feel that as an attempted model of good science or whatever, EB should not be attacking the entire Nature study as totally "without merit".
I think EB is in deep trouble, and the result is likely to be the eventual collapse of this 18th cetury institution. That's sad.
Ec
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I didn't read their response in great detail, but did anyone find even a single criticism that EB accepted
I saw at least one "potayto/potahto" quasi-acceptance. And I vaguely recall seeing a "this article was under review at the time, and is now completely different", which kind of almost indicates a vague acceptance that maybe it wasn't totally perfect at the time...kind of. Maybe.
Steve
On Mar 22, 2006, at 7:41 AM, SJ wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
This confirms it. We have reached GandhiCon 3:
1. First they ignore you 2. Then they laugh at you 3. Then they fight you 4. And then you win.
On 3/22/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
This confirms it. We have reached GandhiCon 3:
Nice term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GandhiCon
Steve
It could hardly be "totally without merit". Most of those disputed facts are really "he said, she said" situation where not even the experts agree. Stubbornly sticking to your guns and using loaded words without going into details as to where specific details come from is -- well let's not use mean words.
Basically what they're saying is that Nature messed up and that Wikipedia has more errors than Nature claimed. "internet database anyone, without specific qualifications can edit" is a jab at Wikipedia's open community" for no other reason than making themselves look good.
I'm having a hard time with the idea of sending them a "nice" message.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic wrote:
"internet database anyone, without specific qualifications can edit" is a jab...
Notice how they carefully don't refer to WP as an "encyclopedia" at all.
I'm having a hard time with the idea of sending them a "nice" message.
But that's the point. The nastier someone is, the more devastating it can be to be nice in return.
On 3/23/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic wrote:
"internet database anyone, without specific qualifications can edit" is a jab...
Notice how they carefully don't refer to WP as an "encyclopedia" at all.
I'm having a hard time with the idea of sending them a "nice" message.
But that's the point. The nastier someone is, the more devastating it can be to be nice in return. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
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.
Regards
Keith Old
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. Guy (JzG)
On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@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. Guy (JzG)
Journals appear to be doing ok.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@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...
On 3/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@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...
I know the case but outright fraud is pretty uncommon. It's when you have an orgin paper with a claimed yield and a note saying that the product was extracted by HPLC you get worried.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@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...
I know the case but outright fraud is pretty uncommon. It's when you have an orgin paper with a claimed yield and a note saying that the product was extracted by HPLC you get worried.
Wow, people still use that?
On 3/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, people still use that?
When you have a product mixed up with a load of pretty simular side products it is probably to simplest way to atchive a seperation.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@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. Guy (JzG)
Journals appear to be doing ok.
Mostly because they deal in specialized niches.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
Journals appear to be doing ok.
Mostly because they deal in specialized niches.
This is unrelated to the current thread, but I was at a meeting at the Public Library of Science the other day and promised them that I would make an effort to bring their work to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community.
http://www.plos.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Library_of_Science
All content of the peer-reviewed Plos journals (including PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, PLoS Genetics, etc.) is released under "by-attribution" (Creative Commons).
Open access to scientific publications is crucial, and I think we should be aware and supportive of their efforts. Scientific publishing, and academic publishing more generally, is due for a revolution... Journals charge extremely high prices, and the contributors are paid nothing... this is a core vulnerability. The contributors contribute because there is prestige in having a paper accepted... if PLoS (and similar efforts) are creating freely licensed alternative business models, then the old business model is doomed.
Barbara Cohen, the executive editor of PLoS, and senior editor of PLoS Medicine, showed me this page:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/015/2004/00000025/F0020008/art0000...
Take a couple of minutes to look at it, and enjoy the sad irony... an academic paper in a traditional journal on the topic of "Impediments to promoting access to global knowledge in sub-Saharan Africa" costs $25 to access!
When you see that, then you understand the importance of the work of PLoS.
PLoS is a great resource. My favorite example for the value of free content research is actually an example of a PLOS/Wikipedia synergy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Natural_tool_use_by_all_the_.22great_ap...
The photos demonstrating natural tool use by a female gorilla come from a PLoS Biology journal. Such use of photos by researchers in Wikipedia is of course only possible because of the free license. The synergies will only increase as we and others create new projects like Wikiversity where they can emerge.
Erik
Another matter. The images in the PLOS articles may sometimes not be covered by the Creative Commons license used by the article.
Fred
On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
PLoS is a great resource. My favorite example for the value of free content research is actually an example of a PLOS/Wikipedia synergy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Natural_tool_use_by_all_the_. 22great_apes.22
The photos demonstrating natural tool use by a female gorilla come from a PLoS Biology journal. Such use of photos by researchers in Wikipedia is of course only possible because of the free license. The synergies will only increase as we and others create new projects like Wikiversity where they can emerge.
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
Journals appear to be doing ok.
Mostly because they deal in specialized niches.
This is unrelated to the current thread, but I was at a meeting at the Public Library of Science the other day and promised them that I would make an effort to bring their work to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community.
http://www.plos.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Library_of_Science
All content of the peer-reviewed Plos journals (including PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, PLoS Genetics, etc.) is released under "by-attribution" (Creative Commons).
Great! Has anyone created templates saying "This article incorporates material from PLoS article XYZ (link)"?
I think these days anybody selling access to information is struggling. Too much of it is free.
Guy (JzG)
Indeed, the fun part is compiling the encyclopedia. The unfun part is the sales side. We get that right.
Charles
Guy Chapman aka JzG 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.
Yes, in many ways. And we want even more of it to be free. At the same time others have gambled with building proprietary databases, and are looking desparate to achieve cost recovery. By and large the economics of the internet includes a lot of very serious unanswered questions.
Ec
Steve Summit wrote:
MacGyverMagic wrote:
"internet database anyone, without specific qualifications can edit" is a jab...
Notice how they carefully don't refer to WP as an "encyclopedia" at all.
I'm having a hard time with the idea of sending them a "nice" message.
But that's the point. The nastier someone is, the more devastating it can be to be nice in return.
Exactly!!!!
Ec
SJ wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica.
It might be interesting to invite Nature to do a new comparison -- this time of our response to their article [1] with Britannica's [2]...
Cheers,
N.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_... [2] http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 10:41, SJ wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
Interestingly, while I agree the study was very limited, all of the methodological concerns Encyclopaedia Britannica raises could have also affected the analysis of Wikipedia. In any case, the import of this response is it took them more time to send a response to some of their customers about the study than it took for all of the errors identified to be corrected in the Wikipedia!
Bullet point:
Wikipedia is on the map.
Britannica's response seems to be well reasoned.
But does Wikipedia plan to be around in fifty years time?
Britannica does.
On 3/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Bullet point:
Wikipedia is on the map.
Britannica's response seems to be well reasoned.
But does Wikipedia plan to be around in fifty years time?
Britannica does.
Wikipedia? I don't know, and, to be honest, I'm not that worried. But Wikipedia's articles will be, and that is what we are working for.
-- Sam
On 3/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
But does Wikipedia plan to be around in fifty years time?
Does anything on the internet? Shear bulk means something will be around in 50 years but if it will be a long dead hulk or a distant ansestor of whatever it evolves into remains to be seen
Britannica does.
So have many things. Considering the ammount information transmission has changed over the last 100 years I doubt anything longer than say a decade can be reasonably planed.
-- geni
On 3/22/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
I've added a collection of news items on this subject at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Press/2006/03/22...
Feel free to add more if new ones appear.