"The Revolution's main adversaries were the patriots and the people from Braveheart," said speaker Tim Capodice, who has edited hundreds of Wikipedia entries on subjects as diverse as Euclidian geometry and Ratfucking. "The patriots, being a rag-tag group of misfits, almost lost on several occasions. But after a string of military antics and a convoluted scheme involving chicken feathers and an inflatable woman, the British were eventually defeated despite a last-minute surge, by a score of 89-87."
Also, magodesky, it's bad form to link to a study that "proves" a point when there exist widely publicized follow up studies that savage the biased methodologies of the initial research.
magodesky : humor, dude. humor.
All of the pages relating to Steven Colbert were locked after he mentioned the site on his show, along with the entry on elephants.
Except Nature admits (PDF) to most of the allegations Britannica made and basically said "That's how we designed our study".
But in all seriousness, I read the EB response and I have to agree with jonson that Nature was savaged, nay indeed trounced.
In one instance Britannica alleges that we provided a reviewer with material that was not from the Britannica website. We have checked and are confident that this was not the case.
Britannica objects that Nature did not check the assertions of its reviewers. This is true; nor did we claim to. We realised that in some cases our reviewers’ criticisms would be open to debate, and in some cases might be wrong. But this applied as much to criticisms of Wikipedia as of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because the reviewers were blind to the source of the material they were evaluating, and material from both sources was treated the same way, there is absolutely no reason to think that any errors they made would have systematically altered the results of our inquiry.
We note that Britannica has taken issue with less than half the points our reviewers raised. Both encyclopaedias have made corrections to some of the relevant entries since our article was published.
We do not intend to retract our article.
Britannica's online statement says the we sometimes sent reviewers only opening summaries of an entry, and ignored the rest of the article. This was not an oversight, but a deliberate response to the structure of the information available. Both encyclopaedias often have a single entry that serves as a summary of a subject and which includes numerous links out to entries on specific aspects of that subject. In these cases, we felt it made sense to compare the summaries, which are themselves several hundred words long. We were careful in these cases not to cite as omissions details that could not have been expected in a summary.
Oh, please. Not providing full articles "may" have caused some problems? And was "unlikely" to create a significant discrepancy? Yeah, whatever. Get a grip on your Wiki-philia, would you? I like the site enough, and have contributed revisions myself, but your kneejerk defense of that very problematic Nature study is absurd.
Anansi, I think the University of Wisconsin would disagree.
But that's not true. The experts were also looking for omissions and whether the articles provided a good overview of the topic. Trying to do that with excerpts chosen by a third party is just absurd.
Also, no matter how rigorously carried out the study was, that doesn't mean it proves what you think it prove.
And also ^.
Entry on Lutherans: 8 pages
Entry on Stephen Colbert: 11 pages.
What they didn't make clear is that Nature edited the articles...
That totally removed any validity from their research.
I'm not disagreeing that directly comparing the articles is easy or even possible. What I'm complaining about is Nature (and you) presenting their results as if that's what they did.
Do I have to spell it out? "I think [EB] know how to [create an encyclopedia] just a little bit better than some random person on the internet."
« Older Good Experience games... | Garfield is dead...maybe. (War... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt