![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A while ago, I read the Nature comparative review of Britannica online and Wikipedia with some interest: despite all the concerns raised about the potential unreliability of a wiki-based reference work, Wikipedia was of comparable accuracy to Britannica.
I was a little surprised by Britannica's robust response to the article; if they'd said nothing, the world at large would have forgotten fairly quickly. Maybe they thought that Nature's editorial team would lie down and play dead if shouted at.
I am unsurprised to note that Nature has done nothing of the sort. It sticks to its guns vigorously and is refusing to retract the article.
I am entertained by the fracas, and interested by what it says both about the relative merits of Wikipedia and Britannica, and indeed about how the two publications view each other.
I was a little surprised by Britannica's robust response to the article; if they'd said nothing, the world at large would have forgotten fairly quickly. Maybe they thought that Nature's editorial team would lie down and play dead if shouted at.
I am unsurprised to note that Nature has done nothing of the sort. It sticks to its guns vigorously and is refusing to retract the article.
I am entertained by the fracas, and interested by what it says both about the relative merits of Wikipedia and Britannica, and indeed about how the two publications view each other.
(no subject)
(no subject)
But I think Brittania must have felt that if they didn't launch a rebuttal then in future people would say "Well Nature says EB and Wiki are the same ..." and eventually this would become one of those myths everyone thinks is true because everyone knows it to be true, despite the fact that it may not be IYSWIM. And yes I can't now think of an example ... *curses*
(no subject)
(no subject)
Well, you could have corrected him back ;) - if there's two against one, then that generally gives you far greater ability to push through any changes.
Obviously I can't address the issue without seeing the specific changes in question - but to be fair, there are some legitimite reasons for reverting changes. E.g., something written by an academic which only references primary sources may fall under original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia no matter how good it may be.
It is annoying when a self-appointed expert keeps reverting changes, but if one is sufficiently bothered, there are ways to get round that (mainly by asking other editors to look over it).
(no subject)