Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

What do you know. And there's this link here too. :p

Mostly irrelevant nitpicking, of course.

And entirely pimpslapped by EB, in its response to the Nature article (to which Nature then replied "yeah, so what?"; sure, that's the way an adult publication responds to allegations...).

Some of the highlights include taking summaries of EB articles and presenting them as whole articles, and using material from other Britannica publications, when the comparison was supposed to be between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia.

I also find it amusing how more than a few people defending Wikipedia are ready to jump on the "of course Britannica will defend themselves, they get paid for their work" (with the implication that because of that financial benefit, they're not going to give the comparison a fair shake), and overlook the minor, tiny little detail that Nature is not an unbiased source because they benefit financially from using Wikipedia as a source, given how people have to pay to access the articles using the cites And also, let's not to mention the virtual blowjob Nature gave Wikipedia in the associated editorial, in that issue.

Sure, unbiased reporting...

[impression type="Cosby as Noah"]Riiiiiight...[/impression]
 
Back
Top