Britannica Attacks - Nature Returns Fire

An anonymous reader writes "Just in case you missed it, Nature has replied to Britannica's criticism of the Nature Britannica-Wikipedia comparison. I think it is fair to say Nature is not sympathetic to Britannica's complaints." The original piece regarding the accuracy comparison, along with the response from Britannica.

Where's the edit tab?

[Eccles]

I want to fix the spelling error "comparasion".

OT:Where's the edit tab?

[minginqunt]

I want to bring back the OMG Ponies!!! skin. It roxxored.

We can't all get what we want.

By Nature it meant the Magazine Nature

[jellomizer]

I had to RTFM just to make since out of the headline. It would have been nice if they mentioned that Nature was the magazine. I thought there was some disagreement between Britannica and Wikipedia description of nature then Nature herself set Britannica on fire. But it made me RTFM so I guess it worked.

Um, what?

[KDR_11k]

Did Britain reestablish the Empire, increase their greenhouse gas production and get wiped out by a natural desaster? Are two hacker groups accusing each other? Is this some Ultima fan-fiction? What the hell is this story about?

Not just Wikipedia vs Britannica

[MrChom]

It's the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy versus Encyclopedia Galactica all over again...

Re:Not just Wikipedia vs Britannica

[MichaelSmith]

It's the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy versus Encyclopedia Galactica all over again...

A snapshot of wikipedia from 1000 years in the future is thought to have defined the sco corporation as a bunch of mindless idiots who were the first against the wall when the revolution came.

Re:Encyclopedia Galactica

[kalidasa]

Not sure that you really want to hold up the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as a paragon of accuracy. Keep in mind that

Entries tend to get updated or not across the Sub-Etha Net according to if they read good.

Take for example, the case of Brequinda on the Foth of Avalars, famed in myth, legend and stultifyingly dull tri-d mini-serieses as home of the magnificent and magical Fuolornis Fire Dragon.

[snip]

Not surprisingly, the Guide's graphically enticing description of the general state of affairs on this planet has proved to be astonishingly popular amongst hitch-hikers who allow themselves to be guided by it, and so it has simply never been taken out, and it is therefore left to latter-day travellers to find out for themselves that today's modern Brequinda in the City State of Avalars is now little more than concrete, strip joints and Dragon Burger Bars.

Average_Joe_Sixpack's Test

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Which is the better resource? Let's see:

Star Wars Christmas Special .... Wiki yes, Brit No
History of Robocop ............. Wiki yes, Brit No
Doctor Who ..................... Wiki yes, Brit yes
Dr Who, info on the 3rd Doc contracting radiation poisoning on the planet Metebelis 3. Wiki yes, Brit no

I can't wait !

[this great guy]

I can't wait for Britannica's reply to Nature's reply about Britannica's criticism of the Nature Britannica-Wikipedia comparison !

Let's check the history on this

[AndroidCat]

02:57, April 3, 2006 Nature (rv. we've been through this a thousand times already and consensus is against you, so stop doing this)
00:51, April 3, 2006 Britannica (Basic concepts of Review - removed the OR, cleaned up the stating of the word history as spelled out in Terra Incognita)
00:37, April 3, 2006 Nature m (rv ...or it's "original research" or it's "a self-reference" or whatever your excuse du jour is. Uh uh.)
00:14, April 3, 2006 Britannica (removed redundant disambiguation and restated the first sentence. Comparison has ideas but is an activity. See discussion page)
15:48, April 1, 2006 FactsGuy (RV another of Britannica's anti-consensus, POV, ill-written revisions. Britannica, please stop doing this!)
15:12, April 1, 2006 Britannica (Basic concepts of comparison - removed the OR, "may have been inspired by" because that is someone's conjection and OR conclusion and not cited here)

Re:The original comparison article

[jokestress]

Here's my favorite comparison:

Wikipedia on Britannica [wikipedia.org]

vs.

Britannica on Wikipedia [britannica.com]

New Wiki Slogans

[catdevnull]

Wikipedia: Almost as good as Britanica without all pseudo-intellecutal pretentions!

Wikipedia: At Least You Can Correct Our Missteaks!

Wikipedia: Suck It, Trebek

Wikipedia: Nature Almost Likes Us!

Wikipedia: 3 out of 4 Slashdotters Prefer Us!

Re:Urgh

[The Lurker King]

Wikipedia should now claim that they came in second in a ranking of online accuracy, while Brittanica came in next to last.

Re:It boils down to this

[KDR_11k]

Now all Wikipedia needs to do is to put the words "Don't Panic!" in large, friendly letters on the cover and they are going to completely trash Britannica.

Re:It boils down to this

[metlin]

One of them was concerned that Wikipedia will eventually cause Britannia (and the others) to be pushed out of business and when she does need more and better info than Wikipedia can provide there will be no other sources.

ARRR!!!! England shall prevail! The Union Jack shalt never set down, you miserable liberal hippie scumbag! x-(

Re:Writing on the wall.

[MightyMartian]

Brittanica, the SCO of the encyclopedia world.

Re:Urgh to you too

[rk]

$ python
Python 2.3.5 (#1, Aug 22 2005, 22:13:23)
[GCC 3.3 20030304 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 1809)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> 1 + 1 = 2
SyntaxError: can't assign to operator
>>>

$ cat test.c
int main() {
1+1=2;
return;
}
$ gcc -o test test.c
test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:2: error: invalid lvalue in assignment

Sorry, you lose. :-)