Matthew's Journal

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.