Communications committee/Subcommittees/Press/2006/03/22 Britannica PR
On 22 March 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. (EBI) presented a press release in which they disputed the Journal Nature article which showed a not dramatic but still significant difference in the number of errors of EBI and Wikipedia articles.
As press contacts, you may be questioned regarding this press release, so we've gathered some information for you here.
Journal Nature article
editThe first thing which Wikipedia realized from the study is we did surprisingly well for an all-volunteer project with no specific editorial oversight. But the second thing we realized is we clearly need improvement.
The original report, published 14 December, 2005 (see archived story), covered 42 articles on scientific topics, comparing the number of mistakes in both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. Exactly 42 days later on January 25, the effort on Wikipedia's part to address these errors was declared complete. Only 38 articles actually required changes, however, since Nature reviewers identified no errors in four of them.
- Project to track and remedy the reported errors
- Timeline:
- December 14, 2005 - Nature article provides the number of errors in each article, but not what the errors were - work begins to comprehensively review each Wikipedia article for accuracy.
- December 22, 2005 - The list of specific alleged errors was made available to Wikipedia.
- January 25, 2006 - All reported errors had been corrected.
- Timeline:
- Signpost article describes remedying the errors
This event has demonstrated the adaptability and resiliency of Wikipedia in that any error, once pointed out, can be corrected quite quickly.
A strength of Wikipedia in general is its transparency. With most other sources, the history of how that article has been written is not available to the reader. With Wikipedia, each version of the article is available, along with information about who made specific edits. This allows the reader unequalled ability to evaluate how stable or dynamic each article is, and to weigh the reputation of each editor who has contributed.
The reader may decide to place less weight, for example, on an article that has been recently created by a single editor, than on an article that has been edited harmoniously by a team of editors over a few weeks or months. This information is clear from the history of the article and its associated discussion page.
Encyclopædia Britannica
editThe Encyclopædia Britannica has existed for 231 years, and has a long history of constantly improving its content. Its editors have justifiable pride in their scientific articles, and have been involved in many research efforts.
The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. welcomes future studies and hopes to learn from the accumulated excellence of Britannica and other reference works, so that our project can be the best imaginable free resource on the web. The Britannica is one of the most significant non-fiction works in the English language, and that level of quality is something we strive for.
Wikipedia, and all Wikimedia Foundation projects, are not in competition to EBI or other companies in the business of reference works. Our goals differ significantly from other reference publishers, and only overlap in that we are all striving to create accurate and useful knowledge tools.
Some of EBI's criticisms of the Nature article stem from Nature compiling information from multiple EBI articles. The Wikimedia Foundation believes another strength of Wikipedia is the breadth of articles (over one million in the English edition), covering topics not described in any other single source.
Web sites of interest
edit- Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature PDF file from EBI
- Quotation from a letter from EBI to customers regarding the Nature article
- Wikipedia Signpost: Nature study measures Wikipedia against Britannica Article from the English Wikipedia's own news site from December 19th, 2005
- Wikipedia Signpost: Errors identified by Nature reportedly all fixed Article from the English Wikipedia's own news site from January 30th, 20056
Web sites that have reported this refutation paper from EBI
edit- Designtechnica: Britannica Comes Out Swinging at Nature March 22nd 2006
- Slashdot: Britannica strikes back at Wikipedia
- The Register: Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study 23rd March 2006
- Golem.de: Encyclopædia Britannica greift Nature an (German) 23rd March 2006 (syndicated on PC-Magazin.de)
- Netzeitung.de: Lexikon wehrt sich gegen Wikipedia-Vergleich (German) 23rd March 2006 (syndicated on n24.de)
- PC-Welt.de: Wikipedia gegen Encyclopaedia Britannica: Vergleichstest falsch? (German) 23rd March 2006
- heise.de: Wikipedia vs. Encyclopaedia Britannica, die Zweite (German) 23rd March 2006
- DerStandard.at: Wikipedia vs. Encylopaedia Britannica: Falscher Vergleich? (Austrian) 23rd March 2006
- Timesonline: Britannica takes a swipe at online upstart 23rd March 2006
- ZDF.heute.de: Ritterschlag mit Schönheitsfehlern (German) 24th March 2006
- Britannica defends its status
- Encyclopedia defends accuracy
- Encyclopaedia Britannica has completed an exhaustive research article...
- Britannica rips journal story
- Britannica defends work
- Britannica assails Nature's Wikipedia comparison as 'wrong and misleading'
- Encyclopedia writes that it was wronged
- Nature Responds to Britannica
- Nature on the hotseat for Britannica/Wiki results
- Britannica says it was wronged by Nature
- Britannica fires back at Nature article
- Britannica lashes out at Wikipedia comparison study
- Encyclopaedia Britannica: we were wronged
- Britannica Says It Was Wronged by Nature
- Britannica assails Nature article on accuracy as 'wrong and misleading'
- Britannica fires back at Nature article
- Britannica assails Nature article on accuracy as 'wrong and misleading'
- Britannica says it was wronged by Nature
- Britannica assails Nature's Wikipedia comparison as 'wrong and misleading'
- War of words over encyclopedia rating
- Britannica Fires Back at Nature Article
- Reference row: Britannica slams Nature's investigation
- Update 3: Britannica Says It Was Wronged by Nature
- and tons of other sites taking this AP text...
- Spiegel.de: Die Britannica keilt zurück (German) 24th March 2006
- Die Presse: Encyclopaedia Britannica empört (Austrian) 24th March 2006
- Tagesschau: Britannica streitet mit "Nature" über Wikipedia-Vergleich (German) 24th March 2006 (also at swr.de)
Blogs
edit- Planblog: Britannica to Nature: Get your facts straight!
- Wikipedistik: Encyclopedia Britannica nimmt Nature unter Beschuss (german)
- Britannica vs. Wikipedia
- Encyclopaedia Britannica strikes back...
- Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy
- Encyclopedia Britannica requests Nature retract article about accuracy
- Encyclopedia Britannica strikes back...
- Netbib:Britannica feuert zurück (German)
- Britannica strikes back
- Britannica n wikipedia: go to your corners
- Encyclopædia Britannica: Response to "Nature" Study on Accuracy
- Rule Britannica
- blogs.guardian: Britannica refutes Nature over Wikipedia watch the fightback begin
- Britannica-Wikipedia debate gets personal
- TimesOnline: Britannica takes a swipe at Wikipedia