[Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica

[Dan Lester]

Wednesday, January 4, 2006, 11:47:40 AM, you wrote:

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

Yes, I meant Nature.  Mea culpa.

And I don't hold the faked research against the journal as such, since
I'm sure the article was reviewed by experts in the field before
publication.  I'm sure you remember the cold fusion (as opposed to
Cold Fusion) fraud a few years ago that also got through extensive
review processes.

There will always be those who try to fake things in all areas.
Recall Prof. Belleisles a few years ago with his history fraud, and
even won the Bancroft Prize before it was caught?   Fortunately, most
of them are eventually rooted out.

I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is perfect or anything like that, but
neither is the Britannica or ANY other reference tool we use.  All we
can do is do our best to evaluate the tools and use the right tool for
the right job.  On many occasions Wikipedia is the right job.  On many
others the Britannica is.  And on even more occasions, neither is the
right tool.

-- 
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.