The back and forth continues between Nature and Britannica with reguard to accuracy and Wikipedia. Nature's response seems well reasoned and thoughtful and paints Britannica as almost infantile in its objections. This is getting interesting.

http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2006/04...ritannica-study

Nature claims the reviewers were blinded, and had no way of knowing whether the articles came from Wikipedia or EB; except, they were emailed the articles, and it would have taken about 30 seconds to search the internet and find out. And then Nature claims EB only objects to half the errors listed; um, half is a pretty large percentage. Oh, and lets not forget that Nature included articles which weren't actually part of the Encyclopedia Britannica, yet misled readers into thinking they were.