Talk:Journal Nature study 'fatally flawed', says Britannica
Add topicWell 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)