Britannica lashes out at Wikipedia comparison study

Study by Nature was 'fatally flawed' says Britannica

Tom Sanders in California

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has lashed out at a recent study by Nature which claimed that Wikipedia "comes close" to Britannica's accuracy in covering scientific topics. 

Nature compared 50 entries in the online versions of both encyclopaedias and counted 123 inaccuracies in Britannica and 162 in Wikipedia.


The magazine used a panel of researchers who received texts from the publications without knowing the source and asked them to hunt for errors and omissions.

While Britannica is compiled by a team of paid researchers, Wikipedia relies on the public to enter information and hunt for inaccuracies.

Nature's study was published shortly after several reports emerged about inaccuracies in Wikipedia, which prompted the service to bolster its editing and reviewing guidelines.

Claiming that the Nature study was "fatally flawed", Britannica has published a 20-page rebuttal (PDF download) in which it attempts to discredit the study. 

"The entire undertaking, from the study's methodology to the misleading way that Nature 'spun' the story, was misconceived," the document alleges. "The facts call for a complete retraction of the study and the article in which it was reported."

The Britannica paper highlighted several inconsistencies. Reviewers claiming that Britannica omitted certain information did so because they were presented with excerpts rather than the full entry.

In another case, Nature rearranged and re-edited Britannica articles. A third complaint pointed out that Nature used text from the more basic student edition of the encyclopaedia.

Nature stated that it has no intention of retracting the study. "We feel this was a reasonable characterisation," the scientific publication claimed (PDF download). 

It admitted that some of Britannica's criticism was valid, but replied that both Britannica and Wikipedia were treated in the same way and that any procedural inaccuracies would have affected both publications equally.

"Because the reviewers were blind to the source of the material there is absolutely no reason to think that any errors they made would have systematically altered the results of our inquiry," said the publication.


Do you agree?

Further reading


Wikipedia squares up to Britannica

Almost as accurate on science, says Nature


Wikipedia locks out anonymous editors

Concerns over errors and malicious entries

Wikipedia forced to lock down entries

'Semi-protection' policy for certain articles following acts of cyber-vandalism

Free Software Foundation to revise GNU

Begins long consultation process over the nature of free software

Related whitepapers

Related jobs

Most watched

Palm Pre

Video: Palm Pre launch at CES checks out Palm's touchscreen smartphone at CES 2009 in Las Vegas

Padlock on keyboard

Trend Micro talks endpoint security

Executives discuss upcoming enterprise products

IT white papers

Search white papers

Top categories


Windows XP upgrade plans

Windows XP upgrade plans

Are you concerned about the end of mainstream support for Windows XP from 14 April?

View poll results



Newsletter signup

Sign up for our range of FREE newsletters:

Existing User

Newsletter user login:

Enter email address to edit your newsletter preferences

Job of the week

Search thousands of IT jobs :

Search thousands of IT jobs:

Advanced search

Hiring now on ComputingCareers:

Related IT jobs

Search thousands of IT jobs :

Search thousands of IT jobs:

Advanced search


Paul Otellini

Intel remains upbeat despite plunging revenues

Otellini rallies the troops as Q1 results show sharp falls


EBay to spin off Skype next year

VoIP provider to be floated in initial public offering

Padlock on keyboard

Trend Micro talks endpoint security

Executives discuss upcoming enterprise products

Expand WAN accelerators

Expand adds Layer 7 monitoring to WANs

Upgraded OS can detect apps and apply policies accordingly

Primary Navigation