Mon 23rd October 2006, 6:21pm
The issue of Chronical of Higher Education in which this appears (dated Oct. 27) should be on its way to subscribers by now, if not already in their hands. It's two articles in the same issue - the first is the main one, the second is background material:http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i10/10a03101.htmhttp://chronicle.com/free/v53/i10/10a03301.htm
Hard to say, but it looks like it might be a cover story. It's mostly pro-WP, in my opinion, though not completely. Here's what it has to say about the Nature
study, for example:
Britannica editors were quick to assail the study: The test, they argued in a lengthy rebuttal on the encyclopedia's Web site, "was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit." Still, the report caused some scholars to rethink their skepticism about Wikipedia, says Mr. Halavais.
Is he trying to be "fair and balanced," or is this a value judgement?