In its December 15, 2005, issue, the science journal Nature published an article that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclopædia Britannicawith Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any sub- ject.1Wikipediahad recently received attention for its alleged inaccuracies, but Nature's article claimed to have found that "such high-profile examples [of major errors in Wikipedia] are the excep- tion rather than the rule" and that "the difference in accuracy [between Britannicaand Wikipedia] was not particularly great." Arriving amid the revelations of vandalism and errors in Wikipedia, such a finding was, not surpris- ingly, big news. Within hours of the article's appearance on Nature's Web site, media organizations worldwide proclaimed that Wikipediawas almost as accurate as the oldest continuously published reference work in the English language.
That conclusion was false, however, because Nature's research was invalid. As we demonstrate below, 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. Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannicawere not inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Natureexamined were not even in the Encyclopædia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit. We have produced this document to set the record straight, to reassure Britannica's readers about the quality of our content, and to urge that Natureissue a full and public retraction of the article. In rebutting Nature's work, we in no way mean to imply that Britannicais error-free; we have never made such a claim. We have a reputation not for unattainable perfection but for strong scholarship, sound judgment, and disciplined editorial review. These practices are the foundation of any reliable reference work, and Nature's careless analysis demeaned them.
Britannica undergoes continuous revision and fact checking. Our editors work unceasingly to revise and improve the encyclopedia and to publish the results in a timely way. We work with thousands of contributors and advisers around the world—scholars and experts all—and maintain a brisk correspondence with our readers as well. We investigate any claims of error that come to our attention, and when one is valid, we fix the error. Where Nature's reviewers found genuine inaccuracies or important omissions in the Britannica, we have corrected them, but as a work of research from which conclusions may be drawn, Nature's study was without value. The purpose of this document is to enumerate the scores of serious errors and misjudgments that undermine Nature's study so that its lack of validity can be understood.
[...]