Wikipedia vs Citizendium, EOL, knol etc, Pls point out invidiual articles which are better done on a non WP sit Options

[Casliber]

Folks, please point out invididual articles which are better done on a non WP 'pedia site and suggest some reasons why (has this been done before here?).

I guess I am interested getting a flavour for subjects where the inclusive approach hasn't worked and has been done better on another online 'pedia

Fire away....
Cas

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Folks, please point out invididual articles which are better done on a non WP 'pedia site and suggest some reasons why (has this been done before here?).

I guess I am interested getting a flavour for subjects where the inclusive approach hasn't worked and has been done better on another online 'pedia

Fire away....
Cas

Hi Cas,

Despite having been around for a couple of years now, it appears only 105 Citizendium articles have been approved. Citizendium's History of Pittsburgh article is quite nice, but, as it turns out, it was lifted from WP, as was CZ's article on Wheat, and apparently many others. In fact, I had a hard time finding a CZ approved article that didn't come from WP.

CZ's Northwest Passage has better illustrations than the corresponding WP Northwest Passage article, but the WP version is more robust. More later, as I click around CZ.

[Somey]

Folks, please point out invididual articles which are better done on a non WP 'pedia site and suggest some reasons why (has this been done before here?).

Maybe it has, but it probably wouldn't have gotten much more traction than this thread will likely get. The problem is, you're asking the wrong question. The fact is, most of the articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Edition are better-written than their Wikipedia counterparts - the problem is that there are fewer of them, they're shorter, they're usually not as heavily illustrated, and you still have to pay to read many (if not most) of them. Those four things, the last in particular, are more than enough to cause many people to prefer Wikipedia when they just want to "look something up" - few people are going to dispute that. And IMO it would be true even if Wikipedia didn't get preferential Google results.

Besides, even if article-vs.-article comparisons were useful in any given case (and I'm not saying they can't be), the place to compare any given article wouldn't be another online encyclopedia-like website, it would be a site completely devoted to the subject in question - one whose biases (if any) were readily apparent, and where you knew the qualifications of the authors. Sites for medical information or business information would be a good example.

I'm not trying to discourage people from posting comparisons, though... There might be some interesting points to be made.

[Casliber]

Folks, please point out invididual articles which are better done on a non WP 'pedia site and suggest some reasons why (has this been done before here?).

Maybe it has, but it probably wouldn't have gotten much more traction than this thread will likely get. The problem is, you're asking the wrong question. The fact is, most of the articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Edition are better-written than their Wikipedia counterparts - the problem is that there are fewer of them, they're shorter, they're usually not as heavily illustrated, and you still have to pay to read many (if not most) of them. Those four things, the last in particular, are more than enough to cause many people to prefer Wikipedia when they just want to "look something up" - few people are going to dispute that. And IMO it would be true even if Wikipedia didn't get preferential Google results.

Besides, even if article-vs.-article comparisons were useful in any given case (and I'm not saying they can't be), the place to compare any given article wouldn't be another online encyclopedia-like website, it would be a site completely devoted to the subject in question - one whose biases (if any) were readily apparent, and where you knew the qualifications of the authors. Sites for medical information or business information would be a good example.

I'm not trying to discourage people from posting comparisons, though... There might be some interesting points to be made.

Yeah, well I am also interested in the machinations that guff certain articles. Pointing out specific EB article'd be much appreciated.

Cas

[the_undertow]

Folks, please point out invididual articles which are better done on a non WP 'pedia site and suggest some reasons why (has this been done before here?).

I guess I am interested getting a flavour for subjects where the inclusive approach hasn't worked and has been done better on another online 'pedia

Fire away....
Cas

Cas, isn't it easier just to point out the WP articles that are better? I know I've seen at least 4 of them in my day. I may even have written one.

[Emperor]

I can't pass up this opportunity to spam the Review.

Wikipedia's WWII article continues to get worse, while Encyc's WWII article keeps improving.

Having spent way too much of my time trying to help Wikipedia's article, I think the problem is that the people who are owning it do not understand history and have not learned about it from places outside the internet. Thus while they may often get facts right, they lack any sense of perspective, relative importance, or fairness. They run around trying to please too many people and forgetting the readers.

I also think that it is subtly infiltrated by revisionists, who delete things like references to antisemitism and Nazi ideology, preferring a more sterile presentation, as a first step towards forgetting.

For example, reading the article, do you understand what a Nazi is? Do you have any idea why six million Jews died in the Holocaust? Do you understand the scale and importance of the Normandy Invasion? Do you know what the gestapo is? What's the Blitz? What's the Bataan Death March? What's the Marshall Plan? I could go on and on.

I understand that they have space limitations, but then you have bizarre situations like more time spent talking about the Canadian use of German POWs in the lumber industry than there is about Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

It's not entirely hopeless coexisting with Wikipedia. Yahoo seems to like Encyc and sometimes puts it in on the second page of search results for "world war 2". I'm getting way more views than I expected.

[thekohser]

There are a number of Wikipedia Review articles that are easily superior to what's found in Wikipedia on the same subject.

MWB:Liz Cohen
WP:Liz Cohen

MWB:Wikipedia Review
WP:Wikipedia Review

MWB:Logic of Relatives (1870)
WP:Logic of relatives

MWB:Relation composition
WP:Relation composition

MWB:Shit on your neighbor
WP:Shit on your neighbor (which isn't even Shit on your neighbor)

MWB:Siger of Courtrai
WP:Siger of Courtrai

MWB:Andrew of Cornwall
WP:Andrew of Cornwall

MWB:Sylvie De Caluwé
WP:Sylvie De Caluwé

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 10th May 2009, 4:01am

[TungstenCarbide]

Cas, isn't it easier just to point out the WP articles that are better? I know I've seen at least 4 of them in my day. I may even have written one.

needs some pictures

[the_undertow]

Cas, isn't it easier just to point out the WP articles that are better? I know I've seen at least 4 of them in my day. I may even have written one.

needs some pictures

They said I could use any picture I wanted, but when I told them to go through OTRS they told me it was too much of a hassle.

[emesee]

aha, i'm not even going to post more than this one line, right here.

[Sarcasticidealist]

aha, i'm not even going to post more than this one line, right here.

That's a relief - I thought you were going to launch into one of your trademark multi-paragraph expository pieces.

[Lar]

Cas, isn't it easier just to point out the WP articles that are better? I know I've seen at least 4 of them in my day. I may even have written one.

needs some pictures

They said I could use any picture I wanted, but when I told them to go through OTRS they told me it was too much of a hassle.

What I have found to be fairly effective is to draft the entire letter for the picture donator, using the boilerplate available, and then send it to them saying "send this to this address and sign it, you need do nothing else"... if you remove all of the work except sending it on from their email system, it makes it a fair bit easier. I've done that several times now with good results.

Why anyone would want to illustrate that particular article is completely a mystery to me, of course.

[Somey]

Yeah, well I am also interested in the machinations that guff certain articles. Pointing out specific EB article'd be much appreciated.

I don't mean to be a contrarian, but merely looking at better articles on Britannica, or any other website, isn't going to help you understand what causes the corresponding Wikipedia article to be inferior, assuming you were even to agree that it is.

I'd use the "classic" example of the Martin Luther articles on both sites, but that would be too easy... So here's a really simple one: The Reichenbach Falls (T-H-L-K-D) WP article (perma-link to current version at time-of-post) vs. the Britannica version.

The Britannica version goes like this:

falls on the Reichenbach (creek) in Bern canton, central Switzerland, one of the highest falls in the Alps. There are five cascades with an overall height of 650 feet (200 m); best known are Upper and Lower Reichenbach Falls, with a drop of about 300 feet (90 m). Much of Reichenbach’s beauty has been marred by a hydroelectric development.

The Wikipedia version:

The Reichenbach Falls (Reichenbachfall) are a series of waterfalls near Meiringen, Switzerland. They have a total drop of 250 m (820 ft). At 90 m (295.2 ft), the Upper Reichenbach Falls is one of the highest cataracts in the Alps. The falls are made accessible by the Reichenbachfall-Bahn funicular railway.

Today, a hydro-electric power company harnesses the flow of the Reichenbach Falls during certain times of year, greatly reducing its flow.

After that, the WP article goes on with a considerable amount of information relating to Sherlock Holmes, who supposedly died there, albeit fictionally, before being fictionally resurrected a bit later on. This info is about twice as lengthy as the material about the actual falls, but two years ago, it encompassed the entire article.

Btw, note that the photo used to illustrate the two articles is exactly the same, presumably because Britannica used the Wikipedia photo.

So, which article is better? In the WP version, you don't get one of the most crucial facts, namely that there are five cascades with a total height of 200 meters. (This Swiss tourism site says there are seven cascades, but I believe Britannica's number is actually the correct one.) The Britannica version also correctly distinguishes between the Upper and Lower Reichenbach; the WP version only implies the existence of the Lower Reichenbach. However, the Britannica version doesn't mention the railway, which might be useful for tourists, and doesn't mention the flow reduction either - indeed, Britannica's reference to how the falls' "beauty has been marred" would probably be removed from the WP version as "original research."

More importantly, though, the Britannica version doesn't mention the Sherlock Holmes connection at all. Any Sherlockian would be absolutely appalled by this oversight, without question. But then again, is the Sherlockian stuff really germane to the article? Most people who are already inclined to like Wikipedia, which has always been heavy on pop-culture references, would probably say "yes" - and indeed, as you can see on the talk page the article was originally all about the Sherlockian connection, and this was the case until March 2007. But people who don't particularly care about Sherlock Holmes would see WP's apparent emphasis on that as just another example of how crowdsourcing can result in more chaff than wheat.

So it's mostly a matter of how various subjects are approached. IMO Britannica does the more professional, "encyclopedic" thing by linking to their Reichenbach Falls article from their Sherlock Holmes article, without mentioning the Holmes connection in the Reichenbach article itself. (They do the same thing with Martin Luther WRT the Nazis, of course; this is because they actually understand how an encyclopedia should be written.) Wikipedia, OTOH, takes a more "cultural" approach that's likely to be more popular with its target demographic - fanboys! Unfortunately, the authors didn't manage to get one or two of the basic facts right about the falls themselves, though there is more information in their version. And, let's face it, such qualitative issues are easily fixed - but just try taking out all the Sherlockiana from that article, and see what happens!

[Casliber]

The Reichenbach and WWII articles are great examples of the need to get the balance right. This is quite a common problem on wikipedia I agree. However, I am quite happy with links and references going either way/back and forth (i.e. Holmes mentioned in Reichenbach article).

When I said good EB articles, I should have clarified I meant EB articles better than WP. Still this is intriguing. Trying to balance Major Depressive Disorder nearly drove me insane, similarly schizophrenia. Several daughter article pages were made for treatment, causes etc. But the traffic figures for them are pretty low...but I digress....

I'd slap an 'unbalanced' tag on the falls but somone would just come and remove the fiction-based material so I had better find some material...

[KimvdLinde]

Lets be honest here.

Citizendium is a failure. I just checked their approved biology articles list, and it does not look to me that they made substantial progress since I left. The naming of species articles is still unresolved, etc.

EOL and knol and others are not really getting anywhere also. I think over time EOL can work, but I am generally put of by the automatic aspects that basically give a lot of links, but often I find limited info.

At this stage, wikipedia is the best of the bad. No superior idea has been pursued yet, but it won't be to difficult to do something like that. The problem is to find the money to start such an initiative.

I have my ideas, but I have no energy to pursue them.

[CharlotteWebb]

Citizendium is a failure.

Where's Captain Obvious when you need him?

I just checked their approved biology articles list, and it does not look to me that they made substantial progress since I left. The naming of species articles is still unresolved, etc.

EOL and knol and others are not really getting anywhere also. I think over time EOL can work, but I am generally put of by the automatic aspects that basically give a lot of links, but often I find limited info.

At this stage, wikipedia is the best of the bad. No superior idea has been pursued yet, but it won't be to difficult to do something like that. The problem is to find the money to start such an initiative.

I have my ideas, but I have no energy to pursue them.

Okay but if you were going to start a site, how would it differ from these others?

[Peter Damian]

I will nominate practically any article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy against any corresponding article in Wikipedia. Let's compare the article on Duns Scotus in each.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/

The SEP article begins "John Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308) was one of the most important and influential philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages. His brilliantly complex and nuanced thought, which earned him the nickname "the Subtle Doctor," left a mark on discussions of such disparate topics as the semantics of religious language, the problem of universals, divine illumination, and the nature of human freedom.

The Wikipedia begins "The blessed John Duns Scotus, O.F.M (c. 1266 – December 8, 1308) was one of the most important theologians and philosophers of the High Middle Ages. He was nicknamed Doctor Subtilis for his penetrating and subtle manner of thought."

Note the similarity of wording, dare we suspect plagiarism? However the SEP has the distinctive "brilliantly complex and nuanced thought" which is too individual in style for WP (but see below).

Both agree on the dates in the introduction but the Wikipedia article has the self-contradictory statement lower down in the 'Life' section that he was born in 1270 - this is because the Catholic encyclopedia article was referenced, written before modern scholarship (i.e. in the 1920's) worked out the date of birth from Scotus' ordination date in 1291.

The WP article mentions the apocryphal and horrifying story about Scotus being buried alive (supposedly when his body was exhumed later, it was found with the head smashed and broken against the stone sarcophagus). SEP, like most biographies, does not mention the story. Likewise, Wikipedia mentions that the word 'dunce' derives from his name, which is an interesting piece of pub quiz trivia.

The Wikipedia article, unlike the SEP, has a section on influence. However this section contains the statement that "He was known as "Doctor Subtilis" because of the subtle distinctions and nuances of his thinking." which is clearly plagiarised from the SEP.

Both articles have sections on the main doctrines. WP is unsurprisingly shorter. It has the astoundingly banal "Scotus is generally considered to be a realist (as opposed to a nominalist) in that he treated universals as real. " There is no attempt at explaining what a 'universal' is (or a realist or a nominalist). Most of the 'Individuation' section is gobblydegook.

The WP correctly identifies De rerum principio as not authentic.

The SEP article is obviously far better, and more accurate. It is not as accessible as the WP article ought to be, but then the WP article is so badly written and incomprehensible that it is not accessible either.

What are the reasons the SEP does it better? Well the SEP commissions subject matter experts to write the articles whereas WP does not. On the other hand, some biographies are quite well done in WP, I don't know what explains why WP is so terribly bad at philosophy.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 10th May 2009, 8:58pm

[KimvdLinde]

At this stage, wikipedia is the best of the bad. No superior idea has been pursued yet, but it won't be to difficult to do something like that. The problem is to find the money to start such an initiative.

I have my ideas, but I have no energy to pursue them.

Okay but if you were going to start a site, how would it differ from these others?

EOL, citizendium etc are to limiting and too much focussed on experts
Wikipedia is to open and anti-expert making it a perfect vehicle for POV-pushers, special interest groups etc and that shows.
That difference is the main issue.

I would change the format to have a main page, a draft page and a talk page. The main page is what you see when you are a visitor. The draft page is were the page is developed, and that page can be edited by everyone, IP, logged in, anonymous, whatever, just like wikipedia. The talk page is obvious. When a draft version is considered publishable, it is flagged and an uninvolved content expert reads it, and can approve it. Once approved, it is the next version of the main page. Criterion for approval is that it is accurate, sourced, and neutrally written. Completeness is irrelevant. A single well written line can be added when written well.

This system is open to everybody, but the contributions are not immediately visible on the wiki but as soon as someone had a look at it. That is a fundamental change, but it leaves a lot of the good aspects of WP in tact, and eliminates the bad things (POV-pushing, vandalism, etc) For example, vandalism does not have to be fixed immediately, as it is limited to the draft page, so who cares.

This post has been edited by KimvdLinde: Sun 10th May 2009, 11:49pm

[Milton Roe]

I would change the format to have a main page, a draft page and a talk page. The main page is what you see when you are a visitor. The draft page is were the page is developed, and that page can be edited by everyone, IP, logged in, anonymous, whatever, just like wikipedia. The talk page is obvious. When a draft version is considered publishable, it is flagged and an uninvolved content expert reads it, and can approve it. Once approved, it is the next version of the main page. Criterion for approval is that it is accurate, sourced, and neutrally written. Completeness is irrelevant. A single well written line can be added when written well.

This system is open to everybody, but the contributions are not immediately visible on the wiki but as soon as someone had a look at it. That is a fundamental change, but it leaves a lot of the good aspects of WP in tact, and eliminates the bad things (POV-pushing, vandalism, etc) For example, vandalism does not have to be fixed immediately, as it is limited to the draft page, so who cares.

Yep. The idea is that people who go to eat at the restaurant don't see what goes on in the kitchen (where the sausage is made, etc).

BUT... THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO. Then, if there's something they don't like, they'll need to get it past the owner or health inspector before it affects what goes up to the tables of the customers, but it can still be done.

I made essentially the identical suggestion a year ago. Sooner or later something like it occurs to many people.

[Casliber]

To Peter on philosophy:

I guess because some widely available material that masquerades as philosophy sends folks in the wrong direction - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was one book that made me want to throw it in an incinerator. Celestine Prophecy was similar.
Cas

At this stage, wikipedia is the best of the bad. No superior idea has been pursued yet, but it won't be to difficult to do something like that. The problem is to find the money to start such an initiative.

I have my ideas, but I have no energy to pursue them.

Okay but if you were going to start a site, how would it differ from these others?

EOL, citizendium etc are to limiting and too much focussed on experts
Wikipedia is to open and anti-expert making it a perfect vehicle for POV-pushers, special interest groups etc and that shows.
That difference is the main issue.

Most experts I know are so time-poor and understaffed in their day jobs that they lack time for these sorts of endeavours (speaking as someone who had to hunt down botanists to write articles). This is why I doubt EOL will get off the gground (I just feel chuffed they borrowed some of my intro for Amanita phalloides

Cas

This post has been edited by Casliber: Sun 10th May 2009, 11:59pm