The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> what will replace inaccurate newspaper headlines then?, what will replace inaccurate newspaper headlines then?
milowent
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:00pm
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed 12th May 2010, 12:55am
Member No.: 20,085

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews...-wikipedia-wins


http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...ps-the-presses/

"But in recent years, print reference books have been almost completely wiped out by the Internet and its vast spread of resources, particularly Wikipedia, which in 11 years has helped replace the authority of experts with the wisdom of the crowds."

This is a ridiculous quote.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selina
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:13pm
Post #2


Cat herder
******

Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined: Sun 19th Feb 2006, 10:28pm
Member No.: 1

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I just came here to post the last link too!

Wow. Wikipedia Review just got a hell of a lot more important...

What's left now, Pears Cyclopaedia (T-H-L-K-D)? o_O
facebook.com/DKBooks
facebook.com/theopenuniversity
facebook.com/oxford.university.continuing.education
facebook.com/OUPAcademic
Encarta
?

This post has been edited by Selina: Tue 13th March 2012, 11:24pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:21pm
Post #3


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Wikipedia to blame my arse.

The cost of the bloody thing was extortionate and their paywall on the net didn't help either.

They charged themselves to a standstill, a bit like the music and film companies are doing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:28pm
Post #4


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 13th March 2012, 11:21pm) *

Wikipedia to blame my arse.

The cost of the bloody thing was extortionate and their paywall on the net didn't help either.

They charged themselves to a standstill, a bit like the music and film companies are doing.



Nothing has changed.

QUOTE

Sales of Encyclopaedia Britannica peaked in 1990, when 120,000 sets were sold in the United States. But now print encyclopedias account for less than 1 percent of Encyclopaedia Britannica’s revenues. About 85 percent of revenues come from selling curriculum products in subjects like math, science and the English language; the remainder comes from subscriptions to the Web site, the company said.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:41pm
Post #5


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Britannica was used before by students to get summaries of things they needed. Now Wikipedia is an easy to do that. Look at Britannica's online attempt - it is quite similar to Wikipedia.


The problem is that Britannica was mostly used for amateurs, not academics, and the amateur market moved elsewhere. Similar to e-books with academic books never really going to be replaced by them (not college text books, but actual scholarly works).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:44pm
Post #6


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,858
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



That really is sad. I hope someone steps in and tries to publish something on paper, even if it's not quite so comprehensive (In addition to World Book). I agree the price point was a little high.

I've really got to start promoting Encyc a little better. So much potential.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:56pm
Post #7


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It was probably inevitable--for years, only libraries bought the print edition.

Don't feel too bad for them. Try to remember all those housewives who were arm-twisted by encyclopedia salesmen into coughing up a big fat check for a pile of books, that was already obsolete upon publication. Britannica was as guilty of that as any other firm, and they even sat there in the 1990s and quietly bought up most of their competitors, like World Book and Comptons, as they went bankrupt one after another -- because of Encarta. The web came much later.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 14th March 2012, 12:19am
Post #8


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 7:56pm) *

Try to remember all those housewives who were arm-twisted by encyclopedia salesmen into coughing up a big fat check for a pile of books,



Don't forget the marketing technique of releasing "letters" at a time. World Book and some of the others did the same thing - I remember as a kid seeing stores have only a couple of letters, and if you wanted the rest of the set you had to constantly come back. Otherwise, you were SOL with only a few letters of one year and some of another, and they didn't always mix.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Wed 14th March 2012, 12:38am
Post #9


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:19pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 7:56pm) *

Try to remember all those housewives who were arm-twisted by encyclopedia salesmen into coughing up a big fat check for a pile of books,

Don't forget the marketing technique of releasing "letters" at a time. World Book and some of the others did the same thing - I remember as a kid seeing stores have only a couple of letters, and if you wanted the rest of the set you had to constantly come back. Otherwise, you were SOL with only a few letters of one year and some of another, and they didn't always mix.

Yup. Go to any church thrift shop and you'll see plenty of "A-C" and "M-O" volumes, but the number of late-in-the-alphabet volumes are nowhere to be found.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Wed 14th March 2012, 12:51am
Post #10


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,858
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 7:56pm) *

It was probably inevitable--for years, only libraries bought the print edition.

Don't feel too bad for them. Try to remember all those housewives who were arm-twisted by encyclopedia salesmen into coughing up a big fat check for a pile of books, that was already obsolete upon publication. Britannica was as guilty of that as any other firm, and they even sat there in the 1990s and quietly bought up most of their competitors, like World Book and Comptons, as they went bankrupt one after another -- because of Encarta. The web came much later.


Obsolete upon publication? I disagree. I'd take a 20 year old set of Britannicas over Wikipedia any day of the week. (didn't Kohs do exactly that?)

Over time I've become much more sympathetic to content generators trying to make a living at what they do. Out of all the crap to spend money on, encyclopedias are relatively worthy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Wed 14th March 2012, 1:42am
Post #11


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



test
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selina
post Wed 14th March 2012, 1:45am
Post #12


Cat herder
******

Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined: Sun 19th Feb 2006, 10:28pm
Member No.: 1

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



(Offtopic I know, but I did say you weren't banned, you didn't believe me did you? smile.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mister Die
post Wed 14th March 2012, 2:21am
Post #13


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun 29th Jan 2012, 11:32pm
Member No.: 75,644

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 14th March 2012, 12:51am) *
Obsolete upon publication? I disagree. I'd take a 20 year old set of Britannicas over Wikipedia any day of the week. (didn't Kohs do exactly that?)
I'd seriously read Great Soviet Encyclopedia articles from the 70's over Wikipedia articles on most subjects.

Take these articles for instance:
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Biology (scroll down a bit)
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Great+Britain (scroll down a fair bit more)
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Literature (the first part, the second part is just about the USSR specifically)
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...%2c+Doctrine+of

etc.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Wed 14th March 2012, 2:28am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Wed 14th March 2012, 5:58am
Post #14


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Selina @ Tue 13th March 2012, 6:45pm) *
(Offtopic I know, but I did say you weren't banned, you didn't believe me did you? smile.gif)

(You don't know what I was testing, do you?)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Wed 14th March 2012, 11:19am
Post #15


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 14th March 2012, 5:58am) *

QUOTE(Selina @ Tue 13th March 2012, 6:45pm) *
(Offtopic I know, but I did say you weren't banned, you didn't believe me did you? smile.gif)

(You don't know what I was testing, do you?)


Her patience?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 15th March 2012, 4:07pm
Post #16


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Some interesting follow-up reading is here, here, and here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
barney
post Sat 17th March 2012, 6:07am
Post #17


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri 16th Mar 2012, 9:39pm
Member No.: 76,900



Paid content? A Blog? Meh.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Thu 29th March 2012, 1:15am
Post #18


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&diff=481865136:

QUOTE
Since today (3/14/2012) in the New York Times, an article describes the end of the Encyclopedia Britannica's 244 year run of print publication, sending Britannica into the "dustbin of history," it is especially appropriate to use Britannica to correct Wikipedia's mistaken entry for the expression, "Dustbin of History," attributed to Trotsky in 1917, instead of in 1903, when the split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks occurred. (Other Wikipedia pages had the correct information at the time.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Thu 29th March 2012, 9:38am
Post #19


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 29th March 2012, 2:15am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&diff=481865136:

QUOTE
Since today (3/14/2012) in the New York Times, an article describes the end of the Encyclopedia Britannica's 244 year run of print publication, sending Britannica into the "dustbin of history," it is especially appropriate to use Britannica to correct Wikipedia's mistaken entry for the expression, "Dustbin of History," attributed to Trotsky in 1917, instead of in 1903, when the split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks occurred. (Other Wikipedia pages had the correct information at the time.)



Bad date formatting too. rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enric_Naval
post Mon 2nd April 2012, 8:43pm
Post #20


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu 15th May 2008, 1:31am
Member No.: 6,149

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 29th March 2012, 2:15am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&diff=481865136:

QUOTE
Since today (3/14/2012) in the New York Times, an article describes the end of the Encyclopedia Britannica's 244 year run of print publication, sending Britannica into the "dustbin of history," it is especially appropriate to use Britannica to correct Wikipedia's mistaken entry for the expression, "Dustbin of History," attributed to Trotsky in 1917, instead of in 1903, when the split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks occurred. (Other Wikipedia pages had the correct information at the time.)



Well, the correct date is 1917 and wikipedia was on the right. I wonder if Britannica really gives 1903, or if this person was just trying to troll.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd 4 14, 11:30pm