1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by Ben W, Mar 29, 2006.

Top Posters
  1. Ben W

    Ben W Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,883
    Likes Received:
    6
    Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study
    By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
    Published Thursday 23rd March 2006 03:33 GMT

    Nature magazine has some tough questions to answer after it let its Wikipedia fetish get the better of its responsibilities to reporting science. The Encyclopedia Britannica has published a devastating response to Nature's December comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica, and accuses the journal of misrepresenting its own evidence.

    Where the evidence didn't fit, says Britannica, Nature's news team just made it up. Britannica has called on the journal to repudiate the report, which was put together by its news team.

    http://snipurl.com/o9i3
     
    #1 Ben W, Mar 29, 2006
  2. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it's true (and I'd put my money on Britannica), then shame on Nature mag. I'm guessing that Nature's staff is more likely to contribute to Wiki than is Britannica's.

    Wiki is still a good source of free information - but! double-check and follow the reference links at the bottom.
     
    #2 Daisy, Mar 29, 2006
  3. npc

    npc New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    #3 npc, Mar 30, 2006
  4. LoveThyNeighbour

    LoveThyNeighbour New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not surprised nature falsified information....
    they do it all the time with their evolution propagnada
     
    #4 LoveThyNeighbour, Apr 1, 2006
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would have thought that "love your neighbor" would exclude false witness.
     
    #5 The Galatian, Apr 2, 2006
  6. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since when does Nature love its neighbor?
     
    #6 Helen, Apr 2, 2006
  7. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems like a reasonnable explanation. They're saying that Wiki approaches Britannica for reliability. Wiki is favored by a lot of scientists.

    I grew up with a set of Britannica (1954 - Germany is forever divided and astronomy is in early childhood) and I've read sections of other editions. Their reputation for scholarship was always top-notch, but stodgy and definitely Anglo-centric. Nature is a renown peer-reviewed, yet accessible, science journal. They are both decent and reputable.

    LTN, read Britannica's entry on evolution and you will undoubtedly accuse them of falsifying information as well.
     
    #7 Daisy, Apr 2, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...