Britannica vs Nature

Encyclopaedia Britannica finally responded to Nature's claim that the encyclopedia and wikipedia had comparable levels of inaccuracy. From an AP story by David Carpenter on abcnews.com:

Encyclopaedia Britannica has completed an exhaustive research article on an unlikely new topic questions about its accuracy. The publisher's verdict: It was wronged. Firing back at an article in the science journal Nature that likened its accuracy to that of Wikipedia, the Internet site that lets anyone contribute, Britannica said in a 20-page statement this week that "almost everything about the journal's investigation … was wrong and misleading." It demanded a retraction. The venerable encyclopedia publisher, which has enjoyed an almost unassailed reputation for reliability since the 18th century, called Nature's research invalid, its study poorly carried out and its findings "so error-laden that it was completely without merit." "The entire undertaking from the study's methodology to the misleading way Nature 'spun' the story was misconceived," Britannica said.

The original Nature news story has been updated with links to Britannica's analysis and Nature's response. Regardless, I love wikipedia.