Information Wars!

There is an interesting fight developing between Nature and encyclopedia Britannica. Late last year, Nature published an article claiming that Wikipedia provided information on topics with about the same level of 'correctness' (my word, not theirs) as Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Obviously, the Britannica people took issue (this is their bread and butter, with Wikipedia...Well no one is out of a job), and it looks like quite a few feathers were ruffled behind the scenes.

The gloves are off now. Britannica posted an open letter on their site (20 pages of argument) claiming Nature is misleading the public (blah blah blah), and Nature published their response today. In short, Nature isn't retracting their story and told them to screw off.

Ultimately, I side with Nature, as I believe that Wikipedia is going in the right direction. Granted, everything on there is not factual, I feel that over time Wikipedia will sort itself out and it will become the new standard of information. Britannica has a lot of money involved and is just trying to save face and sell a few more copies of worthless volumes to school libraries. Why pay for the milk (via Britannica's books and website) when you've got the Cow (Wikipedia's dynamicism, and free) at home?

The days of going to some massive tome in search of the truth, or the fact that there can exist a volume with the truth is over. Sorry Grandpa, you've earned your sleep, now go and take it.