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

[Stephen Bain]

On 3/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at 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 at gmail.com