In December 2005, Nature magazine published a controversial article arguing that WikiPedia was as accurate at worst or more accurate at best (considering it’s comparably larger size) than Encyclopedia Britannica. Last week at the Florida Educational Technology Conference, a Britannica employee spoke out in defense of the accuracy and greater value of Britannica compared to Wikipedia. Given Britannica’s formal release of a statement last week in response to that Nature article, and Nature’s subsequent response on March 23rd, this dialog is timely. This podcast is a recording (shared with persmission) of that conversation.
Program Length: 14 min, 29 sec
File size: 3.5 MB
(Click here to listen to this podcast)
Show notes for this podcast include:
- December 2005 Nature Article: “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”
- My blog post from February 28th, “Wikipedia Accuracy”
- Britannica’s Reponse to Nature (PDF) – “Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature”
- Nature’s response to Britannica’s response: 23 March 2006 (PDF)
- Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study By Andrew Orlowski
- Wikipedia and open source by Nicholas Carr
Subscribe to “Moving at the Speed of Creativity” weekly podcasts!
Receive an email alert whenever a new Speed of Creativity podcast is published!
Comments
2 responses to “Podcast47: In Defense of Encyclopedia Britannica”