Wikipedia talk:Press releases/Nature compares Wikipedia and Britannica

Is the quote real, or could we improve on it? I would use something about aiming for Britannica-or-better quality, since that's something Jimmy has said on several occasions. --Michael Snow 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you can improve it. But please be modest ;-) --Elian ^Talk 17:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think it's modest. Maybe even too much so, I don't know. Anyway, I don't have any more changes in mind at this point. --Michael Snow 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine with me now - shall we link it from the press page now? --Elian ^Talk 17:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Michael Snow 17:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should the page be protected at this point? --Michael Snow 17:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. In the german wikipedia it was never necessary to protect a press release but I don't know how efficient the vandal patrol on en is. In case of doubt, protect it, I'd say. --Elian ^Talk 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

n:Wikipedia and Britannica about as accurate in science entries, reports Nature may be of intreast. Bawolff 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]