Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Britannica Attacks - Nature Returns Fire

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the of-course-one-island-loses-to-nature dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Just in case you missed it, Nature has replied to Britannica's criticism of the Nature Britannica-Wikipedia comparison. I think it is fair to say Nature is not sympathetic to Britannica's complaints." The original piece regarding the accuracy comparison, along with the response from Britannica.

1 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Nature dodged the issue. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I like how Nature dodged the issue regarding the ethanol review. Notice how they did not say they added non-Britannica materials to the items being reviewed, Nature only said that the paragraphs cited by the reviewer were sourced from Britannica. This side-stepping of the actual issue raised by Britannica raises more concerns that it resolves.

    Why was Nature mixing Britannica and non-Britannica materials together for the reviewer? Was the intent to place the Britannica materials in a certain, and erroneous, context so that the reviewers would be led to an incorrect interpretation?

    The more that surfaces about Nature's tactics (and possibly strategy) here, the more suspicious Nature's intentions look.

    Was there any coverage here on /. of Britannica's rebuttal a week or so ago? I must have missed it.