Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-10/In the news

If Nature gave Britannica the full information they want and Britannica reanalysed it (neutrally of course :) ) it would be grossly misleading to publish it as a comparison of Britannica and Wikipedia as they are now as the article versions used are probably now more than five months old. I think Britannica is simply trying to intimidate other publications into not carrying out such studies in the future, which are likely to be more favourable for Wikipedia. I compare Britannica's biography of the day with the Wikipedia article on the same person, and increasingly often the Wikipedia article is better - and Britannica couldn't complain about the selection of material in this case. 62.31.55.223 15:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)