Title match

Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) and the science journal Nature are colliding in a cage match of epic proportions.\nAs you probably know, EB is one of the world's foremost sources of information, and it takes pride in the quality of its scholarship. As you may not know, Nature is one of the world's leading scientific journals, which certainly has the same level of pride. The source of their its contention? Wikipedia. As you must know, Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.\nIt all started when Nature printed a study comparing EB and Wikipedia. The study tries to answer, "If anyone can edit entries, how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?" Nature conducted the first peer-reviewed comparison, and concluded that Wikipedia "comes close" to EB in accuracy of its science articles. First of all, note that Nature only analyzed science articles, but this was surprising news. Not surprisingly, the folks over at EB weren't thrilled with this study or its conclusions. Last month, EB released a 20-page rebuttal titled "Fatally Flawed." Its haughty indignation is evident from the first page, where it says, "Media organizations worldwide proclaimed that Wikipedia was almost as accurate as the oldest continuously published reference work in the English language." The document includes claims that Nature used examples of EB scholarship articles that weren't actually part of EB, but rather were from lesser works associated with EB, such as basic student versions it produces for certain topics. The rebuttal also stated that many of the supposed errors were nothing more than arbitrary determination of omissions.\nNature in turn produced a rebuttal to the rebuttal, which alleged that the purpose of the study was to compare the information both sources provide online, and in some cases only EB's student versions for certain topics are available online. It also explained that errors of omission were as likely to be attributed to Wikipedia as to EB, which seems true because the study was conducted blindly. Despite pressure from EB, Nature does not plan to retract the original article. \nIt remains to be seen whether EB will issue a rebuttal to a rebuttal of a rebuttal.\nI'm inclined to agree mostly with the EB. Any way you look at it, it is more accurate than Wikipedia, and the study didn't even consider other important issues such as readability, organization of content and overall quality of writing. The case EB makes is convincing, and Nature could rightly be accused of sensationalism. It is nice to believe that we can all be experts on any topic and collectively produce a work of scholarship equal to the authoritative EB, but it simply isn't true. \nBut all of this almost seems beside the point to me. I consider myself a scientist. If I want to look up something for one of my upper-level science courses or for the research I conduct in the biology department, I will consult neither EB or Wikipedia, but rather a scientific textbook or an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal -- such as Nature. \nPerhaps Nature isn't the best example right now ... how about Science instead?