REFERENCES and accessed on 17 Feb 2012.] Brittanica. 2006. "Fatally Flawed - Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature," Response to Nature (2005); online as an 836 kB pdf at http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
Carroll, L. 2012. "Useful for students to read - Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source," online on the Chemed-L archives at http://groups.google.com/group/chemed-l/browse_thread/thread/812d1beb556e26b9 , post of 15 Feb to Chemed-L.
Giles, J. 2005. "Special Report - Internet encyclopaedias go head to head - Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. " Nature 438: 900-901, 15 December; online at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Hake, R.R. 2009. "In Defense of Wikipedia ," online on the OPEN ! AERA-L archives at http://listserv.aera.net/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0908&L=aera-l&T=0&O=D&X=0CD6026975BB7916BF&Yemail@example.com&P=1091 Post of 31 Aug 2009 16:41:53 -0700 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and MathTeach.
Messer-Kruse, T. 2012. "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 Feb, online at http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/
Nature. 2006a. "Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response," 23 March; online as a 20 kB pdf at http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf
Nature. 2006b. Editorial: "Britannica attacks," . . .and we respond," Nature 440: 582 (30 March; online at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/full/440582b.html
Nature. 2006c. point-by-point rebuttal to Brittannica (2006); online as a 28 kB pdf at http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf (28 kB).
From a Discussion formum post by Hake, R.R.(2012)