On Thursday, December 15, 2005, at 08:03 pm,
foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org 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.
The Nature article is very sympathetic - and there's an editorial in
the current issue of Nature encouraging scientists to contribute to
Wikipedia.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/index.html#Editorial
"Wiki's wild world p890
Researchers should read Wikipedia cautiously and amend it
enthusiastically.
doi:10.1038/438890a"
(apologies if this has been discussed already - I just get the digest,
so may be a bit behind)
Scott
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security
Centre.
http://uk.security.yahoo.com