Good Articles in Nature

Nature has been quite pro-active on pushing internet technology to scientists. Here are some articles from the past few weeks that I especially enjoyed. [Access does require a subscription. Also note that the DOIs provided by Nature are all kerflooey at the moment. Sorry.]

Butler, D. "Science in the web age: Joint efforts." Nature 438(7068): 548-549. (2005).
doi:10.1038/438548a
At its best, academia is a marketplace of ideas. But many scientists are reluctant to embrace the latest web tools that would allow them to communicate their ideas in new ways.

Bubnoff, A. v. "Science in the web age: The real death of print." Nature 438(7068): 550-552. (2005).
doi:10.1038/438550a
Despite clashes with publishers over copyright, Google's plan to make millions of books available online is turning the tide for efforts to digitize the world's literature. Andreas von Bubnoff tracks the demise of the printed page.

Giles, J. "Science in the web age: Start your engines." Nature 438(7068): 554-555. (2005).
doi:10.1038/438554a
Google has launched another challenge to commercial search services -- this time aimed at scientists. But is the new engine running as smoothly as its fans hope?

Giles, J. "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head." Nature 438(7070): 900-901. (2005).
doi:10.1038/438900a
An expert-led investigation carried out by Nature used peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science. The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

"Wiki's wild world [Wikipedia]." Nature 438(7070): 890. (2005).
doi:10.1038/438890a
Judging by a survey of Nature authors, conducted in parallel with the accuracy investigation, only a small percentage of scientists currently contribute to Wikipedia. Yet when they do, they can make a significant difference. Wikipedia's non-expert contributors are, by and large, dedicated to getting things right on the site. Nature would like to encourage its readers to help. The idea is not to seek a replacement for established sources such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but to push forward the grand experiment that is Wikipedia, and to see how much it can improve.

Posted by Tom on December 16, 2005