Okay, this is "inside baseball," meaning it is only of interest only to aficionados but . . .
Years ago the journal Nature claimed that Wikipedia is nearly as reliable as Britannica. This article calls that finding into question: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ I do not know how reliable this article is. The article says that the staff at Britannica objected to the Nature article. Quote: "'Almost everything about the journal's investigation, from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and its headline, was wrong and misleading,' says Britannica. 'Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit.' In one case, for example. Nature's peer reviewer was sent only the 350 word introduction to a 6,000 word Britannica article on lipids - which was criticized for containing omissions." . . . This sounds like the same Nature we know and love. See, for example, my paper: "How Nature refused to re-examine the 1989 CalTech experiment." http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf - Jed
