Science Journal Says Wikipedia On Par With Britannica. Um, Not So Much, Says Britannica.

By: Hillary Profita
Topics: In The News

Back in December, online encyclopedia – written and edited collaboratively by anyone – encountered a nice wollop of Wiki-controversy. You might recall it was jumpstarted by former journalist John Seigenthaler, who penned an op-ed in USA Today about the exercise in "Internet character assassination" that was his Wikipedia biography. It resulted in weeks of controversy about the legitimacy of the oft-cited resource.

And right around then, the science journal Nature "conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica" that concluded Wikipedia "is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica," wrote BBC News of the study.

Well, Encyclopedia Britannica is none too thrilled with that result, the BBC reports today, calling Nature's study "fatally flawed," and requesting that the findings be retracted.

In a document on their website, Encyclopaedia Britannica said that the Nature study contained "a pattern of sloppiness, indifference to basic scholarly standards, and flagrant errors so numerous they completely invalidated the results".

Nature has rejected Britannica's accusations. Expect a flood of Wiki-commentary in the coming days.

5 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by ronmwanga March 25, 2006 2:13 PM EST: When I think of Brittanica, I think of Mortimer Adler, the late philosopher-at-large from the Chicago Social Commmittee giving up several years of his life to get it all done right. Yes, Wiki is an evolving organism that may, in the fullness of time, blossom into something superior to Brittanica. Conceiveably; certainly with regards to current events. But not in the immediate future with regards to, say, the history of religion or philosophy or Mannerist painting. Let's not jump the gun.; Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 March 24, 2006 10:38 PM EST: I just read the Wikipedia entry for ozone depletion because of the Pelley story, and its safe to say Britannica is in trouble.; Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 March 24, 2006 4:55 PM EST: The good news is the Britannica is on par with Wikipedia. The bad news is that, as it is an evolving organism, Wikipedia will be far superior in another few years. Britanncia will join her sister ship, Britannia, mothballed in exciting Edinburgh harbor.; Reply to this comment


by hprofita March 24, 2006 4:52 PM EST: Andrew Tyndall, you are a copy editor among copy editors. The spelling error has been corrected. Thanks!!; Reply to this comment


by atyndall-2009 March 24, 2006 4:39 PM EST: Seigenthaler has one of the most difficult-to-spell names in journalism. Regards -- Andrew Tyndall; Reply to this comment