advertisement
On The Insider: Brooke Hogan to Pose for Playboy?
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
ProQuest

Fight Over Facts

ASEE Prism,  Summer 2006  by Grose, Thomas K

PUBLISHING

SCHOLARLY DEBATE is one thing. But there's a full-scale feud raging between the scientific journal "Nature" and the world's oldest encyclopedia, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica."The issue: Is the online (and free) Wikipedia encyclopedia as accurate as the Britannica? Wikipedia, of course, is based on open-source software that allows unpaid contributors from around the world to write and edit its entries. Last year, Wikipedia's reputation sustained a high-profile black eye over a posted biography of legendary newsman John Seigenthaler that claimed-falsely, if not bizarrely-he had been a suspect in the assassinations of President John Kennedy and his presidential candidate brother Robert.

Most Popular Articles in Reference
The importance of understanding organizational culture
Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
What factors attract foreign direct investment?
Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
More »
advertisement

But Nature's study last December determined that "the difference in accuracy (between the two encyclopedias) was not particularly great" and that major errors in Wikipedia, like the Seigenthaler debacle, were rare. Nature's news team took 50 articles from each resource-on topics as diverse as the Archimedes Principle, the kinetic isotope effect and Pythagorus'Theorem-and asked experts to vet them, without revealing their source. Now the Brittanica-clearly not happy with the claim that it is no more reliable than an upstart, free rival compiled by anonymous contributors-has struck back. Brittanica claims that "almost everything" in the Nature article was "wrong and misleading." Britannica says it's not infallible but is nonetheless a reliable source, given its "strong scholarship," judgment and editorial oversight. It demanded a retraction. Nature's response: No way. It's "confident" the comparison was fair, it says. -TG

Copyright American Society for Engineering Education Summer 2006
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved