Slashdot Mirror
Britannica Attacks - Nature Returns Fire
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.
Original Nature article comparing Britannica and Wikipedia
Did Britain reestablish the Empire, increase their greenhouse gas production and get wiped out by a natural desaster? Are two hacker groups accusing each other? Is this some Ultima fan-fiction? What the hell is this story about?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Wikipedia is so much better than Britanica in so many ways. For example if you look up Allentown, Pennsylvania it tells me, "The city also is somewhat known for a Billy Joel song, "Allentown," which appeared on Joel's "The Nylon Curtain" (1982) and "Greatest Hits: Volume II" (1985) albums. The song depicts the resolve of Allentonians, amidst the rough and hardened life that characterizes this East Coast, industrial city. "Allentown" also references nearby Bethlehem, home of the then-declining (and now defunct) Bethlehem Steel Corporation." While this may not be a fact that is highbrow enough for inclusion in Britannica, this is actually one of the things I think of when I think of that city -- making it much more useful to me on a practical level.
Or in other words:
Here's what the Encyclopedia Galactica has to say about alcohol. It says that alcohol is a colorless volatile liquid formed by the fermentation of sugars and also notes its intoxicating effect on certain carbon-based life forms.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy also mentions alcohol. It says that the best drink in existence is the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. It says that the effect of drinking a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster is like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick.
Thats the difference.
--
Elephant Essays - Custom-created essays and research papers.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
When I look something up on Wikipedia, it's usually something I wouldn't find in a general-purpose encyclopedia, even one that spans multiple shelves. Generally when I look something up in Wikipedia, the only alternative at hand is to use Google. What I find is that it's far easier to get the information I want on Wikipedia, and it's generally higher quality than information of the sites Google finds. And if Wikipedia doesn't have the information, I use Google to get it and add it to Wikipedia. The bottom line is that Wikipedia doesn't need to be as good as a paper or CD encyclopedia to do its job; it only needs to be better than the best search engines. In fact, it's often better than other enecyclopedias for me because of its incredible breadth of topics.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
For those who are looking at the above wondering "Huh?", remember that if one person has three errors, and the other has four, then the other has "a third more errors" than the first. That means the difference between 96% and 97% accurate is "a third more errors" - but most people would look at the two figures and, rightly, say they're very close. In Nature's case, the headline appears to be accurate, and Britannica, in suggesting otherwise on this basis, is engaging in sophistry.
Britannica then goes on to claim many of the facts Nature depended upon were false. That may be true, but claims like the above suggest Britannica itself is more than willing to massage the facts, and for an organization that's dependent upon its own credibility, that's actually devastating.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
In one of the case's, the encyclopedia britannica claims that Nature used a 350 word introduction rather than the full 6000 word article on Lipids. If this is true I would say they have good reason to criticise Nature's article on the relevant merits of both encyclopedias.
Nature has been remarkably reticent in allowing anyone to see the unabridged reviewer reports to enable readers to make their own judgements, part of their own response to Britannica's allegations states that they 'provided reviewers with chosen excerpts, not full articles; this was done with entries from both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia. www.nature.com Making such arbritary decisions, and not detailing this in the original article is not what is expected of such a respectable publication
Wikipedia can be spotty but is generally authorative
Authoritative is exactly what the wikipedia is not.
Authoritative doesn't mean "accurate", nor does it mean "informative", although these qualities contribute to authoritativeness. But to say a source is "authoritative" means it can be cited, and what makes a source citable is predictability. Authorities have their own biases, but at least those biases are documentable and predictable. If one looks at a nineteenth century Britannica for an article on colonialism, their bias is going to be fairly predictable. With Wikipedia, you might end up with a better, more informative, less biased article. Or you might end up with propaganda from one side or the other of an issue. Furthermore which side you get may depend on the day you look.
Of course in practice this is less of an issue than it would seem. Hot button issues, may be Wikipedia's greatest strength, because many eyeballs expose the review process to the reader. However articles on obscure people or issues are unreliable in the extreme.
I've often said that Wikipedia would be an excellent platform on which to create an authoritative source. Since it's possible to track every version and change to an article, all one needs to do is keep a database of "reviewed and accepted" articles to make your own purpose specific Wikipedia. For example, you could include this version of the George W Bush article in your database if you prefer the negative slant of the article lead. Then all anybody has to do is compare the version in your database to the version preferred by another group, e.g. like this, to know where your slant is.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Now all Wikipedia needs to do is to put the words "Don't Panic!" in large, friendly letters on the cover and they are going to completely trash Britannica.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.