On 12/15/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think that the "Nature" article was largely sympathetic. Our best response would be to review the articles surveyed to make whatever corrections are needed, or even to make corrections that they failed to notice as well.
Agreed.
Once this is done it could be brought to the attention of the "Nature" staff and a challenge issued to see how long it takes EB to make its corrections. 8-)
But why, why why go into this competition thing? :( I believe Britannica and Wikipedia are pursuing the same goals, with different means. Although I find it excellent that we take Britannica as an example and as a goal, I believe we have much to learn from them, and they from us. Can't we work hand in hand to achieve that goal? Competition should be an incentive to get better, for them and for us, not because we want to be the best, not because of stupid numbers, but because we are looking to achieve this:
"Le but d'une encyclopédie est de rassembler les connaissances éparses sur la surface de la terre ; d'en exposer le système général aux hommes avec qui nous vivons, et de les transmettre aux hommes qui viendront après nous" --Denis Diderot
(bad translation) "the goal of an encyclopaedia is to gather knowledge scattered all over the Earth's surface; to expose its general system to the men with whom we live, and to pass it along to those who will come after us " --Denis Diderot
Tell you what, what I hope is that in 2 years from now, Nature will do the same study, and find 0 mistake. Neither in Britannica, nor in Wikipedia.
(a hopeful) Delphine -- ~notafish