Talk:Journal Nature study 'fatally flawed', says Britannica
Well i don't know about you but 'not a significant difference in accuracy between the two encyclopædias' is good enough. If Encyclopædia Britianica is prepared to say that about Wikipedia then we done good.--62.6.139.11 14:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, maybe that wasn't clear enough in the article, it was Nature's report that found there was 'not a significant difference in accuracy between the two encyclopædias', Britannica completely denied this.. --Sammysam 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Britannica would say that though, because it loses them money if people use wikipedia instead of them Cryomaniac 00:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
- Nah, maybe that wasn't clear enough in the article, it was Nature's report that found there was 'not a significant difference in accuracy between the two encyclopædias', Britannica completely denied this.. --Sammysam 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No more Wikimedia articles this month? edit
I could have sworn we weren't going to do any more of these until April. ;) irid:t 15:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- [blush] Sorry, I'm new. --Sammysam 15:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- No need to blush, this is a good story worth covering. Frankie Roberto 17:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why did someone take off the publish tag then? I didn't think it was a bad story. Certainly in comparison to some of today's other published stories. --172.201.94.102 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- No need to blush, this is a good story worth covering. Frankie Roberto 17:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- WE're not publishing any more wikimedia articles because we're looking like the wikipedia propaganda machine. Its too bad though because this was a well done article. Bawolff ☺☻
21:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Content edit
This article doesn't currently explain WHY EB thinks the study was 'fatally flawed'... Some further summarisation and an example would improve the article... Frankie Roberto 17:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Biased reference edit
The theregister.co.uk article Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study seems to be rather biased, should it be removed? Anarchist42 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- We can reference biased things. we just need to make sure our end resault is unbiased. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- We can reference biased things. we just need to make sure our end resault is unbiased. Bawolff ☺☻
Nature link redirects edit
The link to the Nature editorial goes through a bunch of hoops before finally landing at the final destination http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438890a.html era 26 Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.205.19 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Don't know what you're talking about. There is only a PDF from Nature, no editorial. —FellowWiki Newsie 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)