Jump to content

Communications committee/Subcommittees/Press/2006/03/22 Britannica PR: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
On 22 March 2006 [[Wikipedia:Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.|Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.]] (EBI) presented a press release in which they refuted the Journal Nature article which showed a not dramatic but still significant difference in the number of errors of EBI and Wikipedia articles.
On 22 March 2006 [[Wikipedia:Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.|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.
As press contacts, you may be questioned regarding this press release, so we've gathered some information for you here.
Line 11: Line 11:
* [[:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005/Errors|Project to track and remedy the reported errors]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005/Errors|Project to track and remedy the reported errors]]
**Timeline:
**Timeline:
***December 14, 2005 - Nature aticle 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 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.
***December 22, 2005 - The list of specific alleged errors was made available to Wikipedia.
***January 25, 2006 - All reported errors had been corrected.
***January 25, 2006 - All reported errors had been corrected.
Line 34: Line 34:
== Web sites of interest ==
== Web sites of interest ==
*[http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature] PDF file from EBI
*[http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature] PDF file from EBI
*[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/042324.html Quotation from a letter from EBI to customers regarding the Nature article]
*[//lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/042324.html Quotation from a letter from EBI to customers regarding the Nature article]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Nature_study Wikipedia Signpost: Nature study measures Wikipedia against Britannica] Article from the English Wikipedia's own news site from December 19th, 2005
*[[:w:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Nature_study|Wikipedia Signpost: Nature study measures Wikipedia against Britannica]] Article from the English Wikipedia's own news site from December 19th, 2005
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-01-30/Errors_remedied Wikipedia Signpost: Errors identified by Nature reportedly all fixed] Article from the English Wikipedia's own news site from January 30th, 20056
*[[:w:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-01-30/Errors_remedied|Wikipedia Signpost: Errors identified by Nature reportedly all fixed]] Article from the English Wikipedia's own news site from January 30th, 20056


*[http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html Nature: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head]
*[http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html Nature: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head]
* [http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response]
*[http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/supplementary_information.pdf Blogs.nature.com: Supplementary information to accompany Nature news article]
*[http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/supplementary_information.pdf Blogs.nature.com: Supplementary information to accompany Nature news article]
*[http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf Response from Nature to Britannica] 23rd March 2006
*[http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf Response from Nature to Britannica] 23rd March 2006
Line 97: Line 98:
*[http://www.gillin.com/2006/03/britannica-wikipedia-debate-gets.html Britannica-Wikipedia debate gets personal]
*[http://www.gillin.com/2006/03/britannica-wikipedia-debate-gets.html Britannica-Wikipedia debate gets personal]
*[http://timesonline.typepad.com/technology/2006/03/britannica_take.html TimesOnline: Britannica takes a swipe at Wikipedia]
*[http://timesonline.typepad.com/technology/2006/03/britannica_take.html TimesOnline: Britannica takes a swipe at Wikipedia]

[[Category:Press]]

Latest revision as of 19:31, 7 October 2016

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[edit]

The 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.

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[edit]

The 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]

Web sites that have reported this refutation paper from EBI[edit]

Blogs[edit]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications_committee/Subcommittees/Press/2006/03/22_Britannica_PR&oldid=15970874"