Slashdot Mirror


Ex-Britannica Editor Reviews Wikipedia

0-9a-f writes "Robert McHenry, one-time Editor in Chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, offers his thoughts on Wikipedia at Tech Central Station. While many Wikipedia zealots might discount his obvious bias outright, his broad argument is difficult to ignore. A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare, but how would they recognise it once they had?"

18 of 869 comments (clear)

  1. Shakepsearmonkey.pl by stecoop · · Score: 3, Funny

    Robert McHenry asked "how would they recognize it once they had (Shakespeare)"

    Simple. For each Shakespeare literature there would be another million monkeys reading and discussing the article. Thus you have a million writing monkeys and you would have maybe a million million reading monkeys; thus, the noise from the million million monkeys during discussion would drive the million monkeys.

    foreach $monkeys(keys {%Shakespeare})
    {
    print "You\'ve got Shakespeare" if %shakespeare{$monkeys} = $It;
    }

    See the infinite monkey rule isn't good to apply as that rule doesn't facilitate feedback from the system.

    1. Re:Shakepsearmonkey.pl by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Funny

      For each Shakespeare literature there would be another million monkeys reading and discussing the article.

      Hmmm... We can rephrase that, can't we?

      For each Slashdot headline there are another million monkeys reading and discussing the article.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    2. Re:Shakepsearmonkey.pl by lpontiac · · Score: 2, Funny
      and you would have maybe a million million reading monkeys;

      Hmm. I think we need quantum monkeys.

    3. Re:Shakepsearmonkey.pl by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 1, Funny

      If we're talking Monkeys, then shouldn't the code be in VB?

    4. Re:Shakepsearmonkey.pl by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hmm. I think we need quantum monkeys.

      But are they reading, or aren't they? Who knows? Heisenberg and Schroedinger don't, that's for sure.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  2. My Favourite by Seft · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've been using Wikipedia almost exclusively as my encyclypedia for over a year now.

    1. Re:My Favourite by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Funny

      "encyclypedia"

      This reminds me of Bart's discovery that he was drinking "smilk."

      Good luck with your encyclypedia.

    2. Re:My Favourite by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 1, Funny
      I've been using Wikipedia almost exclusively as my encyclypedia for over a year now.
      I have mod points, but there is no "+1 Optimistic"...
      --
      No sig today.
    3. Re:My Favourite by Sivar · · Score: 4, Funny
      I study computer science at the university level, by the by.
      Wow -- That is simply unheard of at Slashdot!
      --
      Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
  3. Re:Evolve, Sir. by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 2, Funny
    FTA [...]

    perhaps you meant FTFA?

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
  4. MMmonkeys by Quixote · · Score: 4, Funny
    A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare, but how would they recognise it once they had?

    So true! Thats like saying a million monkeys might write a great open-source operating system, but how would they recognise it once they had?

    ermm.. wait...

  5. Re:Bias?! by NardofDoom · · Score: 4, Funny
    The Karl Rove ariticle basically made him out to be a reincarnated Goebbels.

    Yeah, Goebbels was more hands on.

    --
    You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  6. How in the hell... by gosand · · Score: 4, Funny
    This is perhaps the most compelling point made in the article, to me. Of course, the cynic's read into that statement is that Wikipedia will never get to the truth (see Asymptote [wikipedia.org]).


    Now how in the hell am I supposed to trust this definition of Asymptote?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  7. I'm guilty of that by selfdiscipline · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's funny

    I am turning in a paper tomorrow that cites the wikipedia as a source. I suppose if I attended a less-crappy university, I might care.

    I think that the information I used was accurate enough. It was about voting systems.

    --


    -------
    Incite and flee.
  8. Re:Out of date? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1, Funny
  9. What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sure, there may be a bad apple here and there, but the stereotypical Wiki author is most definitely NOT a biased, flamebaiting cynic.

  10. Re:approaching truth by orac2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good Lord! A thoughtful, well-reasoned, comment, that accepts the criticism and acknowledges the fundamentally experimental nature of the project, instead of treating the Bazaar analogy like it came down on stone tablets, while in a measured manner making a case for supporting said project?

    On Slashdot?

    My head just exploded.

    --
    "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
  11. Re:Already fixed! by Enahs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, shit. That's embarrassing.

    Typos happen. *shrug*

    You can't tell me a misplaced apostrophe is a typo, though. Look at a QWERTY keyboard, and you'll see how it happened.

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.