Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: britannica.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to britannica.com.

Comments · 523

  1. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  2. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  3. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  4. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  5. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  6. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  7. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  8. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  9. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  10. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  11. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  12. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  13. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  14. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  15. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  16. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  17. Re:Some Ideas - with links by h1l17 · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?
    Many of Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles are available for free, so that might be a good place to start:
  18. Re:Thats what the united nations is for. by servognome · · Score: 1 · on Modern Humans Far More Robust Than Ancestors

    It was never the resposibility of the US government to bail out poor countries. The UN can decide to do this if they want to, but it's not the responsibility of the US.

    You argue how terrible it is that the rich don't help the poor, but then you say it's not the US's responsibility to help poor countries. There is moral responsibility, and the US does respond to such responsibility in the form of food, medical, and economic aid to the tune of several billion dollars per year.

    You are so damn naive. Actually the person who is running for President and who will likely be elected in the Congo is American with a degree from Harvard. Harvard Doctor, the future of Congo. Please do your research BEFORE you post about the Congo.

    He's a candidate not because he is black, but because he is actually from Congo. I don't see how you relate him to blacks from the inner city that we don't listen to, Kashala was foreign born, well educated, and financially well off (hes thrown over 100k of his own money towards hid bid). I actually do research, maybe you should realize the difference between race and national background.

    Martin Luther King was a PREACHER, theres no way in hell he came from a rich or even a middle class family as a PREACHER in the south. Ghandi, he wasnt rich either. I don't know how you can call these people rich, Martin Luther King was the on the lowest economic ladder in America, during a time when there was segregation and everything else

    "King came from a comfortable middle-class family steeped in the tradition of the Southern black ministry:"
    Gandhi was the son of a provincial minister, also with a middle-class background.
    These were both people who suffered, but were not the hardest hit. They had opportunities, they had education. There are those in this world who do not have those things, that is why Gandhi and MLK stood up for them.

    Even if you do not agree with what Martin Luther King stood for or what he did, you must admit he had balls, he was brave.

    I believe in what he stood for. Not only did he believe in Civil Rights and peace, he believed in something more. The idea of non-violence is based on the assumption that people are moral. That when you act non-violently, when faced with the wrath of those you try to change, the reflection of their actions will appeal to theiir sense of morality. This will force them to realize the horrors which they cause, and accept change for the betterment of humanity.
    That is one of the points I've been making. The rich, the powerful, are moral too. Sometimes the fear of change overrules this sense of morality. For example, before the Civil War though Lincoln opposed slavery, but outwardly he only expressed the view of the free west for political reasons.

    There are africans speaking up all the time, don't you listen to any rap music? Don't you read books? There are many many writers, artists, musicians ,who have no money and who are literally starving, but who do speak up. We might not agree with what they have to say, but you have to admit that most artists arent rich, they are poor. The people in Africa who are starving have voices if you care to listen, but most people don't really want to hear it. There are movies about Rwanda, there are many people speaking abuot genocide in Darfur, and you are telling me that no ones speaking up?

    Books, movies, music, are almost always backed by a company or rich individual; distribution is not free. The quiet desperate pleas of poor are heard only through the megaphone of mass media.

    The reason there arent any third world revolutionaries today is because, it's not the third worlds turn. After a few Martin Luther Kings and Ghandi's get shot and killed, that ends whatever revolutio

  19. Re:Dangers of international content? by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1 · on The Dangers of Open Content

    But the report wasn't peer reviewed. In fact it was a con. Britannica protested that the report did not compare mistakes with mistakes nor even full articles with full articles.

    Read all about it.

    Not all of us are as gullible as you.

  20. Re:Too deep by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia and the Collective Hive Mind?

    Except that you didn't read Britannica's reply. You should.

    It won't make you smart, but it will make you less ignorant.

  21. Re:Dangers of international content? by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1 · on The Dangers of Open Content

    Yes. Did you know that Britannica replied with a devastating complaint against the Nature "study" showing that it was utterly false?

    You should.

  22. Re:The British BPI say its illegal by gormanly · · Score: 2, Insightful · on AllofMp3.com Breaks Silence
    We might not like the law, but we still have to obey it.

    No

    we

    bloody

    well

    don't !

  23. Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Mobile Phone Transmitter Causes Brain Tumours?

    Anyone worried about radio waves causing cancer can try to make that theory work. There is a huge barrier, however, in the form of a very very small number: Planck's Constant. Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S. It's that 10**-34 that makes it difficult for low-energy electromagetism like wireless transmissions to interact with chemical reactions. Thirty-four zeros is a LOT of zeros after the decimal point.

    Off topic: I've linked to the Encyclopedia Britannica above because the article about Planck's constant is very short. The article in Wikipedia is long. I've frequently seen the Encyclopedia Britannica be misleading because of the severe limitation placed on size of the articles due to paper costs. Wikipedia does not have that problem.

  24. Re:Matter of time by Woldry · · Score: 1 · on Study Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance

    "Quantum fluctuations" is a widely recognized phrase in physics, used variously to refer to uncertain outcomes of quantum mechanics:

    A book by Edward Nelson of CMU in the Princeton Series in Physics: http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/qf.pdf
    From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
    From a physics lecture at the University of Oregon (the mention is about halfway down the page): http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17. html
    From Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-64917
    From an article in New Scientist: http://www.ldolphin.org/qfoam.html
    A paper from the Division of Engineering and Applied Science, Roxbury Community College/Harvard: http://www.eduprograms.deas.harvard.edu/reu03_pape rs/Lopez.C.FinReport03.pdf
    Theses at Penn State: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/31075.html

    A book from the World Scientific Series in Contemporary Chemical Physics: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/5952.html

    My argument fits the term as used in any one of these sources, or in the half-million others that can be found with a two-second Google search.

  25. Re:Free information vs. Paid information by linzeal · · Score: 1 · on Britannica Attacks - Nature Returns Fire

    It is hard to beat in book form unless you want to print out Wikipedia and god help you if you do. Does anyone have an estimate on how many pages Wikipedia would take up currently in traditional book form? Someone with a few million dollars should go to one of those print your own book thingees and print out the 400 volumes of information or so that Wikipedia encompasses from Boy Band Bios to Zoophilia (which by the scary scary way is much better than the one at Britaanica sorry if you can't see the full article I am a subscriber).

  26. Re:People staying away from Wikipedia because of by br0ck · · Score: 1 · on Britannica Attacks - Nature Returns Fire

    I was interested in your comment and decided to do some research to find more information. Unfortunately, searching with all permutations of Apple/Music/Records/Label/Beatles that I could think of on Britannica returned no information at all, while a simple search for Apple Records on Wikipedia returned a thorough and unbiased article.

    As for the lawsuit, neither source mentioned it, but at least Wikipedia linked to a seemingly non-biased summary.

    So I guess my point is that people have to decide what's better.. lots of information with a rare chance of zealotry, or no information at all.

  27. Re:Nature dodged the issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Britannica Attacks - Nature Returns Fire

    I'm sorry, but I only can get this, when I search "Lipid" on Britannica:

    http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9370322?quer y=lipids&ct=

    I think they compared the free version, the one any kid can get...

  28. Re:The original comparison article by jokestress · · Score: 5, Funny · on Britannica Attacks - Nature Returns Fire
    Here's my favorite comparison:

    Wikipedia on Britannica

    vs.

    Britannica on Wikipedia

  29. Self defense by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Insightful · on Britannica Attacks - Nature Returns Fire

    From the original Britannica "attack": In its December 15, 2005, issue, the science journal Naturepublished an article that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any subject. (emphasis added by me)

    Does anyone think this isn't just Britannica watching its business get clobbered by an online startup, and trying to defend itself? Old guard versus young upstart. Britannica should just buy Wikipedia and maintain both, and just market them differently.

    For what it's worth, there appears to be over 6,500 articles on Wikipedia that use Britannica as a reference, which suggests that the folks writing Wikipidia consider Britannica as a reliable source of information. (Not surprisingly, you cannot find Wikipedia in Britannica.)

    Finally, there is one possible problem with the Nature investigation... the question is not total accuracy at one point in time, but overall accuracy over a long period of time. Wikipedia is constantly changing; Britannica is less frequently updated. What does this mean for a researcher? Has Wikipedia been a reliable research tool for the last 365 days, just as Britannica has been?

  30. Re:Peer review? by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1 · on Slashback: ODF Wars, Duval Layoff, French DRM

    In the same breath, though, they point out that "Even if Wikipedia were 'only' a third more inaccurate than Britannica, this would be a large difference, especially in a study that focused exclusively on factual accuracy, disregarding other important
    properties of encyclopedias, such as the organization of information, the quality of writing, and the readability of the articles." These arguments--organization, quality, readability--seem the strongest, to me, in favor of an encyclopedia with strong editorial control, and these are the precise reasons I avoid consulting Wikipedia unless faced with no alternative (not that I turn to Britannica).

    Assuming the rest of what Britannica has to say is true--not a big leap of faith, I think, since their reputation is really all they have--they make a very strong case that Nature's study was terribly flawed. Some of their claims should be independently verifiable, like that some of Nature's representation of Britannica text was actually a poor pastiche of various Britannica sources, stiched together (badly) by Nature's editors. Very disturbing stuff. I think the editors of Nature are going to have to respond to these claims, one way or another.

  31. Re:Is it really so crazy? by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Informative · on Marvel and DC Enforce "Superhero" Trademark

    Man and Superman,
    play in four acts by George Bernard Shaw, published in 1903 and performed (without scene 2 of Act III) in 1905; the first complete performance was in 1915. The Superman of the title is derived from the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche.

    http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/733_84.html

  32. Remember Godless Communists Spying on citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Google Avoids Surrendering Search Info

    As Neo-facists gain control of top level government facilities,
    American citizens' rights vanish in the all encompassing grasp.

    If the government want's to find out what is on the internet,
    it should pay $$$ a contractor to do it's web crawling for them,
    at market rates, not attempt to steal corporate information off of google, Yahoo, MSN and America Online.

    Want to protect children from bad language, violence, and nudity on cable tv?
    Don't subscribe to cable tv, give them a bicycle.

    Want to protect children from violent video games?
    Don't buy them an Xbox or PS2 - give them a football.

    Want to protect children from the internet?
    Don't give them a computer, buy them a book.
    (Or even an encyclopedia )

    Want to protect you children from drugs, gansta hip hop violence, and peer pressure? Home school the little guys - forget public education.

    Want to protect children from lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
    Be a responsible parent.

    The government can't solve the problem,
    because avoiding personal parental responsibility and expecting the government to take the place of parents - that IS the problem.

    Oh, and it helps if mommy and daddy are actually married to each other and love one another. Families - an old fashioned value, but it has worked so well for thousands of years of human civilization. Why are so many people giving up on the idea of families now?

  33. Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful · on University Bans wi-fi as Health Concern

    "... president Fred Gilbert won't allow it until he's satisfied EMF (electric and magnetic fields) exposure doesn't pose a health risk, particularly to young people."

    The article makes it obvious he was trying to be a big hero at a town hall meeting. In actuality, he knows nothing about electromagnetism, but is not afraid to pretend that he does. We see a lot of that in recent years, as people pretend to know more about computers than they do.

    Anyone worried about radio waves causing cancer can try to make that theory work. There is a huge barrier, however, in the form of a very very small number: Planck's Constant. Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg/S. It's that 10**-34 that makes it difficult for low-energy electromagetism like wireless transmissions to interact with chemical reactions. Thirty-four zeros is a LOT of zeros after the decimal point.

    Off topic: I've linked to the Encyclopedia Britannica above because the article about Planck's constant is very short. The article in Wikipedia is long. I've frequently seen the Encyclopedia Britannica be misleading because of the severe limitation placed on size of the articles due to paper costs. Wikipedia does not have that problem.

    --
    Cheney: Killing small animals and Iraqis for fun and profit.

  34. Re:There is no 'War on Terror' by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1 · on UK MPs Approve Compulsory ID Cards

    Yes, there has. September 20th, 2001:

    http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9398253?hook= 798654

    Go back and reread that ENTIRE speech and remember what is like to have your nation, your liberty, and your soul murdered on live television.

    And then try and tell me that there wasn't a Declaration of War. I've found several - in fact - in front of Congress. So, no.. there hasn't been just one, but several.

    Including a resolution passed by Congress to authorize the force: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

    But again, this is all subject to interpretation! :)

  35. The Experiement is Over by thebiss · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia vs Congressional Staffers [Update]

    This is perfect proof that, given two interested parties and debatable facts, a public document editor cannot be used an authority.

    Score one for Britannica http://www.britannica.com/

  36. Re:Correction by version5 · · Score: 1 · on Who is Your Hero, Gates or Jobs?
    So you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you like.

    No, I'm correcting an error you made. You said Jesus himself said he would kill everyone who didn't believe in him when he returns. That is simply wrong.

    But the religious establishments themselves, including the Catholic Church, have officially recognized Revelation as divinely-inspired.

    The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't, they don't include it in their Bible. Amillenialism is the official Catholic and mainline Protestant dogma, established by St. Augustine in the 4th century. It teaches that the Book of Revelation is allegorical or possibly refers to Roman Emperors, the Antichrist is a metaphor and not a real person. From religioustolerance.org: "Events described in The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) and in most of the book of Revelation are seen as occurrences which have already happened, or which are symbolic in nature and not to be taken literally." What you mistakenly call the dogma of all of Christianity is one particular interpretation created in the 19th century by American fundamentalists. For someone so committed to the scientific method, you have a remarkable disdain for facts.

    Morality is not an addition / subtraction kind of affair. One passage explicitly condoning racism is not "nullified" or canceled out by one that encourages tolerance. If you murder someone, you are and always will be a murderer; it doesn't matter how much charity you give.

    The Bible is a book, not a person, it has no morality. What the Bible teaches is an addition/subtraction affair, because it has a mixed and ambiguous set of teachings that are open to interpretation. The question here is not whether we can pull out some verses of the Bible that can be interpreted to support immoral acts, but whether Christian churches make that interpretation, and whether it makes up a substantial part of their teachings. Additionally, Christian theology is heavily influenced by ancient Greek philosophy. The works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle make up what we might call the unofficial scriptures, and they too have been used to justify various acts we now consider to be immoral. For example, the Great Chain of Being. If you want to implicate our culture's ancient roots for perpetrating various evil things, why do you stop with the Bible? It is very clear the that Great Chain of Being justifies slavery, that it has been used that way and that is a Platonic idea. Do you denounce Plato?

    The Bible is not "ambiguous" on racism... One passage explicitly condoning racism is not "nullified" or canceled out by one that encourages tolerance.

    Oh, but one passage explicitly rejecting racism is nullified by one that encourages racism?

    Exodus 19:5 explicitly states that God favors the Israelites over all other people.

    You are claiming that this specific verse substantially influences Christian behavior and morality, but that contradicts historical Christian anti-semitism.

  37. Re:But soil bacteria... by brianf711 · · Score: 2, Informative · on Soil Bacteria Show High Resistance to Antibiotics

    This is a critical comment and should be modded up. I was about to make the same comment (so hence I may be biased for my praise of your comment).
    http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/629_1.html
    Waksman was studying soil bacteria when he discovered streptomycin. Numerous other antibiotics were identified from similiar bacteria, so it is not surprising, as you mention, that many forms of bacteria are resistent to antibiotics, since either the soil was the original source for the antibiotic, or the mechanism of action for the antibiotic for which future chemical compounds were screened. For these reasons, I don't see what all the concerns are. Sounds like just uninformed fear-mongering.

  38. The crocodile is the largest lizard by ugmoe · · Score: 1 · on Kong Mirrors Real Evolutionary Paths
    >>These include the Komodo dragons, the world's largest >>lizards which can be 10 feet long or more and weigh up >>to 500 pounds.

    Isn't the crocodile the world's largest lizard?

    http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38416

    The crocodiles are the largest and the heaviest of present-day reptiles. In former times the Nile crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus) and the estuarine crocodile (Crocodilus porosus) attained a length of almost nine metres (about 30 feet), but today, specimens rarely exceed six metres (20 feet). Other species, for example, the smooth-fronted caiman (Paleosuchus) and the dwarf crocodile (Osteolaemus tetraspis) are about 1.7 metres (six feet) in length.

  39. Re:Slashdot Under Siege.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005
    I'm sure you'd ignore the Red Cross and other charities that had religious origins
    Perhaps you had better read up on the history of the Red Cross. The organization started out as the International Committee for the Relief of the Wounded. The Red Cross symbol was merely an inversion of the Swiss flag, chosen due to Swiss neutrality. The organization attempts to remain neutral on all accounts - including religion. Otherwise, they would have a hard time operating on fields of battle.

    Simply because the organization was founded by a christian, and uses a cross as its symbol, does not make it a christian organization. It espouses no christian dogma. Does not reference prayer/churches/gods. And actively disassociates itself from any appearances to the contrary.

    ICRC
    Red Cross
    Britannica Article


    rho
  40. Re:Whoa there - Wikipedia: Consider the source by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1 · on ZNet interviews Richard Stallman

    Here you go. Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117286. Also, see http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-219369?query= Corporatism&ct=. Unfortunately you can't see the whole article, but the Wikipedia entry (at least when I looked) is pretty objective. I suspect it is defaced frequently though.

    The definition of Fascism isn't political (the MISdefinition of it is).

    From the Britannica article there are several features that fascist governments tend to have in common. Some of them fit the present day US quite well. Others may not, but actually, if you think about it, actually seem to fit in a really scary way. The suggestion isn't that the US is fascist now, but may be moving alarmingly in that direction. Take note -- as Chamberlain learned pre-WWII, it's better to be vigilant and face problems rather than hope they'll go away.

  41. Re:Whoa there - Wikipedia: Consider the source by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1 · on ZNet interviews Richard Stallman

    Here you go. Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117286. Also, see http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-219369?query= Corporatism&ct=. Unfortunately you can't see the whole article, but the Wikipedia entry (at least when I looked) is pretty objective. I suspect it is defaced frequently though.

    The definition of Fascism isn't political (the MISdefinition of it is).

    From the Britannica article there are several features that fascist governments tend to have in common. Some of them fit the present day US quite well. Others may not, but actually, if you think about it, actually seem to fit in a really scary way. The suggestion isn't that the US is fascist now, but may be moving alarmingly in that direction. Take note -- as Chamberlain learned pre-WWII, it's better to be vigilant and face problems rather than hope they'll go away.

  42. Re:More on White Dwarfs... by doza · · Score: 1 · on Hubble finds Mass of White Dwarf

    and here? http://www.britannica.com/search?query=White+Dwarf &ct=

  43. What about accountability? by furnk · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica
    I, too, marvel at the depth of the Wikipedia, but I caution against using it as anything more than a background source for information. Why? Because you, at this point, have no real idea where the information came from. To me, saying that a bit of information is true "according to Wikipedia" is the same thing as saying that something is true "according to the Internet."

    I think libel law is a great debate for Wikipedia. If Britannica had linked an innocent person to JFK's assassination, there would be lawsuits and firings. But because Wikipedia is so nebulous, you can't hold anyone responsible for it -- and Wikipedia admits to as much in its disclaimers:

    Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_dis claimer

    Interestingly, at the bottom of Wikipedia's disclaimer page, it also takes a shot at Britannica, saying that the encyclopedia website's disclaimer uses the phrase "YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK." Unfortunately for Wikipedia, that phrase doesn't actually appear on the link provided. http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html

    Finally, it's important to note what Wikipedia is really, really good at. From an Associated Press article on the report:

    (Wikipedia founder Jimmy) Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.

    The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.

    Please don't think that I am making the case against Wikipedia as a useful tool. It's an amazing tool -- and an ingenious one. But I'd hate to start seeing newspaper articles or students' term papers use Wikipedia as a primary source.

  44. Battle of Agincourt (size matters) by fyoder · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica
    Length of article does matter. Here are articles from each for 'The Battle of Agincourt'.

    Brittanica

    Wikipedia

    You can see that Wikipedia is much more informative.

    What's that? I could get more info from Britannica if I paid for a membership or went to the library? Ha ha ha ha, right.

    Britannica might be able to compete with Wikipedia if they tried, but they aren't interested. They are firmly wedded to the 'pay for content' model that has been their bread and butter for a very long time. The open web is just a marketing tool for them.

  45. Re:There is still one critical difference - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica

    "Britannica is authored by an entity which takes responsibility for its errors and has a long history of accuracy. Its content is "vetted", meaning that there is a measure of academic validity to what was written."

    See also here and here.

  46. Re:More words == lower error rate? by DrStrange66 · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica
    Only if that is what the article should say, and saying so is useful to someone looking up whatever topic it is you are looking up and finding the aforementioned gibblefinch storm. If, on the other hand, it is not useful or relevant, then not, it would tend to increase the error rate, or at lease lower the signal to noise ratio, rather greatly.

    Perhaps then someone should setup a Kalman filter to decide if a combination of the various encyclopedias entries would be more accurate or if the entry from one of the individual sources is more accurate than the combination of them.

    Note: I didn't find a good entry in http://www.britannica.com/ on the Kalman Filter.
  47. Encyclopedia Britannica is much worse. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica

    I compared the information about Barbara McClintock, the Nobel Prize winner, in the Encyclopedia Britannica with that found elsewhere on the Internet.

    The Encyclopedia Britannica article was not inaccurate. It was, however, extremely misleading. It was worse than worthless, since it gave the idea that Barbara McClintock's achievements were much less valuable and extensive than they actually are. After many years and much progress in Biology, her work is still valuable. A copy of her papers requires 80 feet of shelf space!

    The Wikipedia article is far, far better than the one in the full Encyclopedia Britannica.

    No space-limited, profit-oriented publication can compare to internet research, for most topics. I don't think that Encyclopedia Britannica has anything against Barbara McClintock, but the company must decide how much paper they want to buy.

  48. Bullshit by Raul654 · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica

    "Britannica is authored by an entity which takes responsibility for its errors and has a long history of accuracy. Its content is "vetted", meaning that there is a measure of academic validity to what was written. "

    Oh really?

    "The services and all information, products, and other content included in or accesible from the services are provided 'as is' and without warranties of any kind (express, implied, and statutotory, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose), all of wihch Britannica expressely disclaims to the fullest extent possible" - Britannica's terms of use

    You were saying?

  49. Re:Hah! "Science" articles! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica

    What does Britannica say about "Goatse"?

    More telling is what Britannica says about Wikipedia:

    Sorry, we were unable to find results for your search.

  50. Which *pedia is better? by eldavojohn · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica

    Three errors per article? Come on, do you know how much a set of Britannicas costs? Even the on-line subscriptions are $70 annually or $12 monthly!

    Ok, so the error ratio is around 4:3 but what about the cost ratio?

    My consumerism values tell me that Wikipedia wins out big time.

    Why are these two even being compared? One is a paid service where you expect all the information to be correct and the other is a free service where you're told that there's no garuntees if it's accurate. Sounds like two completely different services to me.