There are no error-free encyclopaedias

There are no error-free encyclopaedias ››
The humanities lot might have felt that Wikipedia was curate's egg but Nature has concluded via rigorous peer-review that science entries in Wikipedia are about as good at Britannica. Britannica has refused to comment.
3 months later: Now they have [pdf]. And they're mad. Nature's study is "so error-laden that it was completely without merit". Nature responds [pdf] that it was all nice and kentucky but that the sample size might've been a little on the miniscule size. My title still stands: none are error-free. The only thing to add is that it is remarkable where dignity can be found: venerable old Nature and upstart Wikipedia seem to have it here whereas deeply respectably Britannica is looking a little edgy. I love the smell of burning business models in the morning.
[Permalink…25-Mar-06…Deserving memes……Comments (0)]

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated so please have patience. An email address is required but won't be shown or disclosed to anyone if I can help it because I don't like spam either.

Movable Type 4.1 | common syndicated-feed-icon.gif feed (add to Google) (validate it) | Creative Commons license | xml sitemap | xhtml1.0 | css | File under: feelings, uncommemorative

ortholog.com: commonplacings, preponed futures, brainworthy memes, paradigm fragments, rigorously conceived musings, gists, free association on free science, stuff I have nowhere else to put. All the opinions and interpretations are my own. This site exists neither for nor despite you, but you are more than welcome to read it.