[Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica

[Richard Wiggins]

Do you mean "Science" or do you mean "Nature"?  The former, a respected US
journal, has its own problems with the faked stem cell research out of
Korea. The latter is a respected UK journal.  I do believe that the Nature
story on "Wikipedia vs. Britannica" is flawed in many ways and has gotten
way too much ink exonerating Wikipedia precisely at a time when questions
need to be answered.

/rich


On 1/4/06, Dan Lester <dan at riverofdata.com> wrote:
>
> The best point made in the article cited below is that a number of the
> "errors" on both sides may well be because no one knows the answer for
> sure.  We can't go back and ask Mendeleev how many siblings he had and
> how many lived.  And does it REALLY matter, even if you're doing a
> term paper on him, especially since even the experts aren't sure?
>
> I was taken to task off list for reporting this previously because the
> sample size was "far too small to prove anything".  Well, yes, the
> sample size was small.  However, it was indicative enough to the editors
> of Science to report on.  Also, we have to remember that NO SAMPLE of
> ANY SIZE can ever "prove anything", since the sample size only
> determines the confidence level.  (are we 95 percent sure that the
> answer is right, 99 percent, etc.)
>
> dan
>
>
> Tuesday, January 3, 2006, 6:16:25 PM, you wrote:
>
> SB> Interesting follow-up from today's New York Times:
>
> SB> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03comm.html
>
> SB> Bernie Sloan
>
>
> --
> Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan at RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
> 3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
> www.riverofdata.com  Fair is whatever God decides to do.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>