OPEN

What this debate distracts from is that Wikipedia is a new medium, much more than a grass-roots rival to encyclopedias…

Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) has – after a fairly long  gap – issued a blistering rebuttal to the Nature article that found that Wikipedia was on a par with itself for accuracy.

EB has published a twenty page, point by point critique of the Nature article, which it claims contained a good few inaccuracies itself. The report says:

Nature’s research was invalid. As we demonstrate below, almost everything about the journal’s investigation, from the criteria
for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article
text and its headline, was wrong and misleading. Dozens of inaccuracies
attributed to the Britannica were not inaccuracies at all, and a number
of the articles Nature examined were not even in the Encyclopædia
Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so
error-laden that it was completely without merit.

As well as publicising the report, it appears that EB has been writing to its customers to make its case and reclaim its authority.

It will be interesting to see what Wikipedia’s response is. There’s a pretty good write-up in the Times.

Nature’s got the most to lose here, though – its reputation and authority could be damaged if it cannot back up its claims at this point.

Even if EB is more reliable as a reference source, Wikipedia is faster growing and more vibrant. It’s usefulness is not solely based on accuracy and authority, but on the power of a million members contributing content.

What this debate distracts from is that Wikipedia is a new medium, much more than a grass-roots rival to encyclopedias, though it is useful as a research engine, for sure. Take a look at the famous entry around the July 7th Bombings in London for instance. On EB if you enter "7 July London Bombings" you get a four results, the most recent historical event being a plot among German war leaders in 1944. Wikpedia’s entry runs to nearly 7,000 words, including the Economic impact of the attacks and historical comparisons.

(Via Guardian Technology Blog.)