Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FUD-Based Encyclopedias

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the knocking-it-after-trying dept.

blacklily8 writes "Someone has finally gotten around to offering an intelligent point-by-point rejoinder to an ex-Brittanica editor's lambasting of Wikipedia--which was covered in this earlier Slashdot post. Aaron Krowne, a mathematician and head of Emory University's library research department, argues here that established encyclopedias are using FUD to discredit what is actually a more reliable way to build an encyclopedia: 'McHenry's definition of quality seems to consist solely of presentational matters such as spelling, grammar, and text flow. These are of course important considerations, but I propose that there are other important facets of quality - for example, coverage.'"

9 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. I say, by Freston+Youseff · · Score: 3, Funny

    Brittanica? You sirs have been trolled.

    --

  2. Bad spelling by alex_guy_CA · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a really bad spller, I really apreciate Aaron Krowne. Thanks for poiting out that other things mater.

    --
    San Francisco Photographers
  3. McHenry was right. by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1, Funny


    Having glanced at Krowne's missive, I'd have no choice but to support McHenry in whatever it was he said.

  4. Boring... by kegwell · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sorry, that article was so boring I can't even think of a reply.

  5. Slashdot is a perfect example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That you don't have to have correct spelling, grammar, or text flow to deliver a high-quality product.

  6. Point to point... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn, I thought someone had made a peer-to-peer version of Wikipedia. Now that would be a cool thing.

  7. Re:Isn't the Brittanica guy a bit biased? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Funny
    Bugger both of them, I'd get shot down if I tried to cite either as a factual source in an academic paper. Encyclopedias are supposed to be a low-depth survey text, not a high-depth high-accuracy research text. As such, Wikipedia survey's many more topics than Britannica - in greater depth.
    The problem is... Many of Wpedia's article aren't of any great depth. A great many of it's articles are in fact coverage of every anime character, and seperate entries for each and every Dwarven king in LOTR.
  8. Re:Yet another battle between haves and have-nots by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    But to think that Google will automagically give you the right information is just rediculous.

    Perhaps. But it will automagically give you the right spelling of "ridiculous".

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  9. You're wrong by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny
    This claim still persists today even though there is at least as much evidence for the existence of the yellow emperor as Homer.

    Homer does not really exist. He's a cartoon character. But he is yellow!