Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 10, 2005, 3:18pm
I was over on the Encyclopedia Britannica website and noticed this:
"There's nothing else like it. 32 volumes offering a boundless range of information written by Nobel Prize winners, authors, curators, and other experts, updated and revised to cover today's world events. In fact, you can't find a more organized, helpful way to learn about anything that intrigues you -- Britannica's 237 years of experience guarantees it. In an age when anyone can post their version of the facts on the Internet, Encyclopaedia Britannica maintains its reputation as the most authoritative source of the information and ideas people need for work, school, and the sheer joy of discovery."
What do you guys think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by infoterror on Dec 10, 2005, 6:52pm
Dec 10, 2005, 3:18pm, Igor Alexander wrote:What do you guys think?
I hope so
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by blissyu2 on Dec 11, 2005, 3:28am
We should organise a match up. Wikipedia vs Brittanica.
Mind you, I am not convinced that Brittanica is 100% accurate either, especially with relation to "historical" events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 11, 2005, 7:54am
Dec 11, 2005, 3:28am, blissyu2 wrote:. . . I am not convinced that Brittanica is 100% accurate either . . .
Wikipedians always use that as an argument to defend their project (which is fallacious). I personally have never stated that the Britannica (or any other source, for that matter) should be taken as gospel. But the Britannica does give me what I expect from an encyclopedia far more consistantly than Wikipedia does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 11, 2005, 8:03am
Dec 11, 2005, 3:28am, blissyu2 wrote:We should organise a match up. Wikipedia vs Brittanica.
That's not a bad idea, though the results will vary depending on whether Wikipedia is having a good article day or a bad one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by blissyu2 on Dec 11, 2005, 8:25am
Dec 11, 2005, 7:54am, Igor Alexander wrote:
Dec 11, 2005, 3:28am, blissyu2 wrote:. . . I am not convinced that Brittanica is 100% accurate either . . .
Wikipedians always use that as an argument to defend their project (which is fallacious). I personally have never stated that the Britannica (or any other source, for that matter) should be taken as gospel. But the Britannica does give me what I expect from an encyclopedia far more consistantly than Wikipedia does.
I will agree that on most kinds of articles, Brittanica wins hands down.
However, Wikipedia does have times when it is better. For example, brand new topical entries will be covered in Wikipedia as they are happening, while Brittanica will have to wait. Another example is with topics that are too obscure for Brittanica (which IMO should be what Wikipedia should be focussing on, yet they seem to be deleted a lot, in spite of that being Wikipedia's big benefit), such as internet phenomenon and rarely heard of things. And a third example is when the Brittanica pushes a ridiculous point of view. Whilst Wikipedia does this too, sometimes, just occasionally, they stop their bullying for long enough to let another POV in. That's another great advantage. Brittanica decides for themselves whether to include things.
But of course that's the thing. When I was at school, in the dark ages before they had computers (or at least they weren't in schools or libraries), whenever we researched something, I'd get lazy and get out a good old Brittanica. I'd flip to the topic that I was researching, and pluck out great parts of it. And the Brittanica was better than any other book I could find - usually at least. The only problem was that sometimes it didn't have info on a topic.
So of course some kids probably think that Wikipedia is the same - and, worringly, so do some teachers! So I imagine some kids going around, doing their research project, where they are meant to use Google, but they get lazy and skip to Wikipedia.
That's the big danger there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by matt on Dec 11, 2005, 9:43am
It's BriTaNNica not BriTTaNica!!! You're not going to convince many people that you're more trustworthy than Britannica if you can't even spell their damn name!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by sancho on Dec 11, 2005, 11:25am
"What do you guys think?"
I think all those old geezers at Britannica see the writing on the wall; that their days are numbered; and they're having to move into a defensive position to slow down their eventual demise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by Ignore Me on Dec 11, 2005, 11:34am
Does Britannica even have an article on John Seigenthaler, for that matter? Or on even more obscure topics? Can you find out about Ali Kerimli, Khairy Jamaluddin or Ketuanan Melayu on Britannica?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by sancho on Dec 11, 2005, 11:48am
"Or on even more obscure topics?"
Nope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by blissyu2 on Dec 11, 2005, 12:08pm
Nope. Britannica is all about actual notable people. And, sadly, the real benefit of Wikipedia, in that they can talk about obscure topics, is being destroyed because of the "notoriety" element that is forcing through lots of deletions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by Cyber on Dec 11, 2005, 3:07pm
The question is: Do we need articles on obscure topics? Not to say Mr. Seigenthalter is obscure, but he is, in my opinion, not remarkable enough to grant him an entry into a dictionary. Would I have ever felt the need to look him up, I'd have used Google. Would I on the other hand need to look up Aristoteles, I'd use a dictionary.
In other words: A dictionary should only contain what through impact, persistence and importance has proven to be notable.
That is, by the way, the other flaw Wikipedia has: It's nice to try to include just about everything, but you will need someone to keep it current. The more obscure entries will fall through due to lack of interest, if the few people, sometimes even a single individual, who added them won't keep them up-to-date. The more obscure entries you have, the more will fall behind.
Cyber
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by o0 on Dec 11, 2005, 3:16pm
Dec 11, 2005, 3:28am, blissyu2 wrote:We should organise a match up. Wikipedia vs Brittanica.
Mind you, I am not convinced that Brittanica is 100% accurate either, especially with relation to "historical" events.
Bear Vs. Shark dude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by MOTAR on Dec 11, 2005, 5:19pm
A reference source should cite pioneers and culture changing people. If you want to see a mess, just visit the urban dictionary.
MOTAR the imperious
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 11, 2005, 8:17pm
Dec 11, 2005, 8:25am, blissyu2 wrote:For example, brand new topical entries will be covered in Wikipedia as they are happening, while Brittanica will have to wait.
Isn't that what newspapers are for?
Dec 11, 2005, 8:25am, blissyu2 wrote:Another example is with topics that are too obscure for Brittanica (which IMO should be what Wikipedia should be focussing on, yet they seem to be deleted a lot, in spite of that being Wikipedia's big benefit), such as internet phenomenon and rarely heard of things.
I agree with you there. That's really Wikipedia's biggest - maybe only - strength over the big boys. Oddly enough, many Wikipedians seem ashamed of this and want to make Wikipedia more like Britannica.
Dec 11, 2005, 8:25am, blissyu2 wrote:And a third example is when the Brittanica pushes a ridiculous point of view. Whilst Wikipedia does this too, sometimes, just occasionally, they stop their bullying for long enough to let another POV in. That's another great advantage. Brittanica decides for themselves whether to include things.
That's certainly an issue. That should have been another major selling point for Wikipedia - that it tolerates marginal and unpopular views - but again, most Wikipedians seem ashamed of that element and are determined to drive it out.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since Wikipedia is based on the premise that anyone can edit, but that's the way it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by momo on Dec 11, 2005, 8:25pm
Dec 11, 2005, 7:54am, Igor Alexander wrote:
Dec 11, 2005, 3:28am, blissyu2 wrote:. . . I am not convinced that Brittanica is 100% accurate either . . .
Wikipedians always use that as an argument to defend their project (which is fallacious). I personally have never stated that the Britannica (or any other source, for that matter) should be taken as gospel. But the Britannica does give me what I expect from an encyclopedia far more consistantly than Wikipedia does.
but at least wikipedia doesnt charge you to get more then basic dumass info...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by Ikester on Dec 11, 2005, 9:50pm
Dec 11, 2005, 8:17pm, Igor Alexander wrote:Wikipedia is based on the premise that anyone can edit, but that's the way it is.
... anonomously! But more than that. Anyone can propose a deletion or reversion. A majority vote takes the day and often voting seems to resemble a "follow the leader" mentality. And, as pointed out elsewhere, sysops are cloaked as well.
Anyway, I've read a bit in these forums as to what's *wrong* with wikipedia but precious little about any saving graces. More importantly, I see nothing productive such as suggestions regarding changes that could be made to wikipedia so as to retard false information and encourage truthful information .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by Cyber on Dec 12, 2005, 1:29am
Dec 11, 2005, 9:50pm, Ikester wrote:
Anyway, I've read a bit in these forums as to what's *wrong* with wikipedia but precious little about any saving graces. More importantly, I see nothing productive such as suggestions regarding changes that could be made to wikipedia so as to retard false information and encourage truthful information .
That demand is justified and I would like to give the question back: What do you think should be done to address the concerns raised on this board?
Cyber
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by laurels on Dec 12, 2005, 4:23am
Dec 11, 2005, 8:17pm, Igor Alexander wrote:
That's certainly an issue. That should have been another major selling point for Wikipedia - that it tolerates marginal and unpopular views - but again, most Wikipedians seem ashamed of that element and are determined to drive it out.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since Wikipedia is based on the premise that anyone can edit, but that's the way it is.
The problem is that Wikipedia does not take into account that anarchy always organizes itself out of anarchy.
It is easy to complain about tyrannical authority - whether it's a government or a reference work culture. What is apparently a bit harder is to understand that this authority grew out of something that was originally "free" (anarchy).
Once upon a time, here in the USA, anyone could print anything, and they did (and still do). Out of this mess grew organization. It's a predictable phenomenon - you could graph it if you had the right information. Get to that special point on the curve and suddenly people can't sort through all the information themselves, and start relying on "experts" to help them figure out what is credible and what isn't. This is how the culture Wikipedia hates so much came into being.
Wikipedia was allegedly supposed to be a sort of anyone-can-join-in thing. Now, it's pretty obvious there is a status quo, a "government", us/them, in/out, "meet the old boss, same as the new boss".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by laurels on Dec 12, 2005, 4:24am
Dec 11, 2005, 8:25pm, momo wrote:
but at least wikipedia doesnt charge you to get more then basic dumass info...
And if you're a basic dumass, I suppose you're well served.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by laurels on Dec 12, 2005, 4:25am
Dec 11, 2005, 9:50pm, Ikester wrote:
Anyway, I've read a bit in these forums as to what's *wrong* with wikipedia but precious little about any saving graces. More importantly, I see nothing productive such as suggestions regarding changes that could be made to wikipedia so as to retard false information and encourage truthful information .
Hey, I posted my suggestions (see thread "hypothetical question").
You ought to read everything before you complain about what isn't posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by ikester on Dec 12, 2005, 4:32am
Apologies. I thought I had. Now on my second visit other topics are popping to the top. I hadn't realized there were four pages of topics. 8O
I'll read your suggestions in the hopes of finding more than Igor's "burn wikipedia" approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Subtle jab at Wikipedia?
Post by laurels on Dec 12, 2005, 5:21am
Dec 12, 2005, 4:32am, ikester wrote:
I'll read your suggestions in the hopes of finding more than Igor's "burn wikipedia" approach.
You know the single biggest thing that put me "off" Wikipedia?
Reading through the pages Wikipedia devotes to its critics.
Take Brandt, for instance. I don't know the guy. I never talked to him and he means nothing to me. But JUST READING WHAT WIKIPEDIA HAS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM, I sympathize with him and think less - much less - of Wikipedia for it.
It's pretty obvious that not only is he being targeted for a landslide of pure garbage (apparently for no other reason but that he criticized the wrong person? I don't even KNOW) - not only that, but that Wikipedia has been appropriated as an instrument FOR BAGGING ON BRANDT.
That is - an instrument that is being presented as an "article", for the purpose of providing information and education, is being misused for someone's private agenda.
Ditto several other sites I've seen. Are they "encyclopedia articles" or are they propagandistic attacks meant to drag innocent bystanders into some totally infantile internet rivalry?
Both, it would seem - the very fact that they are presented as "encyclopedia articles" is supposed to be more persuasive to people than just plain posting "This Guy Is A Poophead".
As someone who might very well have been both an end-user of Wikipedia's material AND a potential volunteer, I am quite frankly insulted that the Wikipedians want to use me that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------