Nature Cooked Data for Wiki-Britannica Comparison

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-03-24 03:16am

Zed Snardbody wrote:Wiki is nothing more than the Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy sans the words "Don't Panic" on the fron t page.

"it has many omissions and contains much that
is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate"

If the editors loosened up a little, it could easily be just that.

As it is, Wikipedia is serious business. Hell, half the damn site is powered by OCD.

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2006-03-24 01:19pm

petesampras wrote:If the allegations made by Britannica are true, have they sufficient ground to sue? Any legal experts here know?

I'm no legal expert, but if I were Britannica, I'd have lawyers breathing down Nature's neck right now just out of principle. That would force them to address the allegations as completely as possible and, hopefully, make all the research public.

I'm a bit dismayed by many people's attitude towards Britannica as if it's some sort of bad guy. While I can appreciate some value to Wikipedia, Britannica is a wonderful (and scholarly) source of information that is undeserving of a lot of this treatment.