[okfn-discuss] effort to improve "open science" article on Wikipedia... also see citizendium

Sat Sep 14 07:13:03 UTC 2013

On 14 September 2013 05:33, Gene Shackman <eval_gene at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also, the assertion that wikipedia is high quality is often based on a 2005
> study saying it was just as accurate (or just as inaccurate) as encyc brit.
> But that study may have been fatally flawed, says bbc
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm

The BBC here are not saying that they believed it was flawed. They are
simply reporting that *Encyclopaedia Britannica* — who of course had a
significant stake in the question, this being a few years before they
were forced to cease publishing their print edition — claimed that it
was flawed, and that Nature (who published the story), in turn
strongly rebutted the claim.

Tony