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

[Steve Bennett]

On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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