Talk:Communications committee/Subcommittees/Press/2006/03/22 Britannica PR

Link to project to fix the Nature findings?

Hello, the Signpost article is already listed, but maybe there should be a link directly to the project undertaken to fix the errors: Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005/Errors  ?Johntex 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This quote is particularly powerful: "This list of errors was made available on 2005 December 22 (the original 2005 December 14 article only provided the number of errors in each article). All errors were corrected by 2006 January 25." Johntex 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Word choice

In the following sentence from the 1st paragraph of the article:

On 22 March 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. (EBI) presented a press release in which they refuted the Journal Nature article which showed a not dramatic but still significant difference in the number of errors of EBI and Wikipedia articles.

Wouldn't "challenged" or "contested" be a better chice than "refuted"? If "refuted" is used, then it implies that the original Nature study was flawed, & that EBI is justified in their criticism. The accuracy of the study is an issue that we don't need to discuss in this statement: Nature pointed out errors in EBI & Wikiepedia, & we responded by fixing them & moved on. -- Llywrch 16:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good call. This should be changed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)