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

[Joseph Reagle]

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!