Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Encarta Adopting Wikiesque Process
An anonymous reader writes "The MSN Encarta program manager announced that readers of Microsoft's encyclopedia articles can now edit articles in a Wikipedia-like fashion. Once submitted, edits are reviewed by Encarta staff members for accuracy, readability, and proofreading before being incorporated into the article." From the post: "To support this program, we've hired some new research editors. Their job will be to help you out with things like fact-checking, syntax, and editorial style. Every writer can use a good editor, and we see no reason that community contributors deserve any less." J adds: This won't be a big surprise, but "Your submissions to Encarta must be your own work" and "you grant Microsoft permission to use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission."
First Britannica takes over Wikipaedia, and now, one week later, Encarta announces wikification? What a world we live in!
1. Imitate what is obviously an excellent encyclopedia system.
2. Patent it under some dumb name.
3. ???
4. Profit! In Soviet Microsoft, software patents edit YOU!!!
Seriously, though, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, etc...
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
I can't imagine that this will actually work, I mean how many people submit/modify Wikipedia articles each day? It will be impossible for Microsoft's small (in comparison) payed staff to sift through hundreds, even thousands of changes, even if they use an automated filter to reduce the number of poor submissions. The page says a submission may take weeks before it appears, and I think this is being optimistic. In the end I question if this will even yield higher quality articles than Wikipedia, this just seems like Microsoft saying, hey look "me too!"
Select one:
positiv: So MS values the "Wikiesque Process"
neutral: An interesting develpment
negative: Who will own the copyright? Surely M$!
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Get ready for a stream of jokes about how /. should do the same...
Microsoft Writes Open Source Child Porn Buster
Longhorn to use UNIX-like User Permissions
"Readers of Microsoft's encyclopedia articles can now edit articles in a Wikipedia-like fashion"
huh...
Web Design Tips
Not that I'm trying to troll here, but two reasons a Wikipedia-esque method of editing Encarta would appeal to M$ immediately come to mind:
- Now they can have the end-users do the work of editing, just as they've always had the end-users do the work of beta-testing their products (involuntarily, of course).
- They don't need to work out a process for the edits...all they have to do is lift it from Wikipedia.
I only hate M$ because I make my living supporting them.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Is it just me, or does this sound like Microsoft wants users to write their encyclopedia for them?
Santa's suicide mission go!
What are the odds that they'd approve this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx
nt
will their encyclopedia be digitally signed?
I don't know how I can trust it otherwise.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
What's next, and "community" site to allow programmers to write new applications for Microsoft to sell?
The cake is a pie
Seriously, they probably will not. As a patent on the "wiki" system is far-fetched. ...then, many patents are far-fetched but still get through. Soon someone patent the wheel too.
Bud Light Presents Real Men of Genius
(Real Men of Genius)
Today we salute you Mr. Aaron Patterson
(Mr. Aaron Patterson)
Where would this world be without you and your innovations like typing www.en.wikkipedia.org into your address bar and copying virtually every feature off of it.
(Mr Copycat)
Thanks you for giving us the brilliant new features of user contributions and a clean fresh design just like www.en.wikkipedia.org.
(Who do you think you're fooling?)
Few men are brave enough to steal an idea and call it their own, but you have no problem posting about it on your blog.
(Look at ME!)
So crack open an ice cold Bud Light Mr Aaron Patterson You have high standands when it come to the online encyclopedia industry, and intelectual property
(Mr. Aaron Patterson)
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
imitation is the highest form of flattery. Microsoft will have a unix style users (I didn't read the article only the head line) andy now wkiki style? Maybe they should open the source? (but they wont)
I think this is a good idea, perhaps better than wikipedia's current setup. For starting out an article, it's less than desireable but at some point an article has to be "finished" for most purposes. In the same way articles at wikipedia are nominated for "featured article" status, perhaps articles should also be nominated for "finished" status at which point they should become harder to edit. Also, then you could get an independent authority to stamp it as "accurate," something with which wikipedia will always have trouble if they don't change.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Is this like the United States claiming communism was bad because of Russia's ID requirements and then turning around and implementing those same requirements they had previously criticized? I think so.
why support open source when you can just copy it?
all the "user support" with all the proprietary systems you could want!
1) Monopoly
2) Linux
3) SCO
4) Longhorn
5) U.S. Department of Justice
The end is the beginning, the end of days, dogs and cats living together. Tux and Clippy playing ring around the posie (sp?)
Your encyclopedia is garbage. I tested it. I looked up "Spork" on both Encarta and Wikipedia... Guess which one gave an answer!
"The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
"Why would I want to spend time to contribute something for free so that [Apple] can turn around and sell it for a profit?"
"Dns cache poisoning"
Encarta:
Separate articles on Cache, DNS and Poison none useful.
Wikipedia:
None found, Suggests searching Wikipedia with Google or Yahoo, Google suggests this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_attacks
Which has a link to this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_cache_poisoning
Shows you how fresh Wikipedia is, it looks like the DNS Cache poisioning page is too new to be indexed by either Google or Yahoo.
More to the point I can see why Microsoft wants to go the same way.
Seems like a good idea. Although as a somewhat frequent wikipedia contributor, I like the idea of seeing my words in "print" (for lack of a better word) immediately. The article says that you would submit your encyclopedia article which would be reviewed, and then edited by a bunch of reviewers. So the turnaround time is definitely longer than wikipedia.
Fostering a community spirit might be somewhat harder, I think due to the fact that the community isn't really actively involved in editing each other's works and contributing. It still goes through a review process, and the reviewers have the final say.
Wikipedia's strength (and some might say, weakness) is due to the large userbase that works on articles. Hence there is a broad spectrum of opinions and views when in the end sort of balances out. Would there be some sort of inherent bias due to the review process? I mean, does there have be any set of "officially sanctioned" view? Wikipedia has an article on Wikipedia criticisms. Can we expect to see an article that criticizes Microsoft or MS Encarta ON MS Encarta? That would be interesting.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Open source: users do all the testing, bug reporting, and create the content.
Proprietary: same as open source, except you pay some company for the privilege, again and again
Be objective and factual. A good encyclopedia article describes a topic in a precise, straightforward manner that is free of bias and opinion. If an issue has two sides, both sides should be presented in an objective manner.
I can't wait to see what the "Microsoft" entry is gonna look like after a while. They're gonna need to hire an editor/firefighter for that entry alone. It'll be a full time job!
Microsoft releases WinXP kernel under GPL
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Publishing an article in MS Encarta is more prestigious, and the editor scheme deals with the problem that some may be tempted to submit their work to Wikipedia in parallel. MS really knows how to harvest what others sowed.
I'm sure they will *cough* have no problem *cough* with anything written that is critical of Microsoft.
*cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*
This is GOOD for all those (poor) people still using Encarta. My first thought when I saw Wikipedia was the idea that knowledge could be updated - not just major important stuff (Pope -> previous Pope) but less important stuff as well (almost all processors are 32-bit --> a number of 64-bit microprocessors have been released, etc.). You get the picture.
And now Encarta will have that. Which is a GOOD thing. If you want to create an encyclopedia, you go with Wikipedia (or H2G2, or Everything2). If you want to help improve Encarta, because you use it a lot, NOW YOU CAN. It's just a feature, people.
The neutrality of this article is undisputed.
..Thank goodness for innovation!
now wheres that patent application?
Starsucks
Wikipedia, the free "online encyclopedia" has been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Anybody can access it free of charge, anyone can add to it, and there's any entry for everything. Right?
It turns out that the great advantage of the Wikipedia, the wiki format, which allows everybody to add/edit everything, is also its greatest disadvantage. There are a few topics that I care about, a few of which I actually contributed to the German version of Wikipedia. Watching these entries change over the past few months, I noticed the following tendencies:
1.
Most contributions are poorly researched, or not researched at all. Accuracy depends mostly on the one website from which the contributor copied the information. A substantial amount of Wikipedia entries contains information that I know to be incorrect.
2.
There is no editorial selection. Some entries just grow and grow because some enthusiast who has no sense for what's important and what's not keeps adding pointless stuff to some entries.
3.
Due to extensive linkage within Wikipedia itself, a growing number of badly researched, incorrect Wikipedia articles is pushing down well-researched specialist websites in Google rankings.
4.
Text and concepts for Wikipedia entries are often blatantly copied from other websites. To avoid instant recognition, the text is sometimes rewritten, adding inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even errors. Due to the nature of the content and the open format of Wikipedia, no copyright holder can do anything about this.
Wikipedia generates noise, not knowledge. Previous encyclopedias were well-researched and contained precise information that could be trusted to be correct. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains a large amount of errors, omissions and superfluous trivia.
Basically, what is happening here is the building of a parallel World Wide Web inside the wikipedia.org domain and calling it an "encyclopedia", which is a total perversity. Just making it searchable and giving it an encyclopedia-like structure doesn't make its content any less fluffy, error-ridden and amateurish than any other website.
I hope that in a few years it will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken serious at all.
But, but, editors are members of the "Old, and busted" business model. The "New, and hotness" business model doesn't need those "money grubbing" editors. Just like Music doesn't need middle-men to sound good.
Remember the Internet will solve all of man's ills.
Any idea that someone thought of and implemented years ago that:
a) Microsoft found on the Internet
b) Microsoft starting using
c) Microsoft patents the idea (see 'Patent' in MSN)
d) Microsoft sues the pants of everybody using it.
Anyone want to bet that their "fact checkers" just head over to wikipedia to check the submissions?
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
So this is what they hired Ken Jennings to do! It all makes sense now.
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
So, here are the interesting features they've added -- in their own words:
(1) The "Encarta Answers" service for getting instant answers to your questions will be available in four new languages. Repeat "FOUR" new languages. Boy, was that tough!
(2) Whole site gets a new makeover, with a simpler, cleaner design. It makes all of our pages load a bit faster, too. Yep, we figure somehow clean sites are not only cleaner, they are a lot clear too. And that makes more space for all those ads too.
(4) Last but not least, we stopped showing ads to Encarta Premium users! This is something that many of you have asked for, and we decided to do the right thing for our customers. Look, no ads when you pay. Now are we great customer lovers or what!
--
The third feature will be due next version.
The wheel? It's been done.
Under wikipedia, the information is GPL'ed. They even say that you should contribute only if you want to (possibly) see your words be ripped apart and modified mercilessly. Wikipedia's content is covered by the FSF's GNU Free Documentation License
So does this information belong to MS, or everyone?
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Hasn't Wikipedia patented a " method of creating and maintaining a self-organizing and self-correcting information resource with open network access"?
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Luckily for us all, Microsoft's EMBRACE, EXTEND, and EXTINGUISH will not take root in this case.
"Every writer can use a good editor, and we see no reason that community contributors deserve any less."
That's a sneaky way to spin the question of user-edited vs. MS-edited.
But then, if they let the users edit themselves, why would anyone need Microsoft?
Come to think of it, that's a good question. Why does anyone need Microsoft?
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Wikipedia is useless in getting true information in most cases, it only demonstrates the folly of trying to achieve truth by group consensus.
Someone says the Earth is round , someone else say it is flat. They can argue about it till the cows come home , but the only way to put the matter to rest is to compromise and say it is square. So then of course Wikipedia will wind up with the asinine statement that the Earth is square. So then the reader comes along and reads the article and thinks he made a step forward when he actually made a step backwards to his quest for knowledge.
It does not matter that Wikipedia has half a million articles if the bulk of them are loaded with the nutty opinions and hearsay of mouth-foaming raving lunatics pounding away at their keyboards day and night in their personal Jihad to get their version of the world published on Wikipedia.
Just try to edit any controversial topic on Wikipedia and see what happens within 15 minutes.
It is scary when you think about it , we are now spreading so much misinformation through the internet through sites like Wikipedia that appear on the surface as legitimate sources but which in reality are mostly conduits of partisan propaganda.
There used to be a time when Knowledge was the result of real research and facts. Wikipedia and other similar sites have turned knowledge into a duel of dissenting opinions.
Truth will never be what the editors of Wikipedia and other such sites say it is, Truth is what is regardless of what we would want the world to believe.
Wikipedia should do the world a favor and at the very least cut the academic pretense and announce that it is only a collection of opinions on any given topic.
"Open source: users do all the testing, bug reporting, and create the content."
And are lousy at GUI's and Documentation.
"Proprietary: same as open source, except you pay some company for the privilege, again and again"
Why? Did your old software suddenly stop working?
they accept openoffice edited articles...
It's far from offtopic. He's trying to show that you have to pay to read Encarta articles, while Wiki articles are free.
If Microsoft are going to have a team to check over every piece of data entered/edited, didn't they do their research?
Wikipedia works so well because of the volume of information that is changed, and that is changed in real time. Microsoft would need a HUGE team, or have to outsource, and although an outsourced encyclopedia would prove comedic, it wouldn't be useful.
Business Voyeur
Once thing I've noticed about wikipedia is that articles are updated within hours of new information or breaking news. I don't see that happening with Encarta, due to this reviewing process.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Why post articles on encarta, rather than wikipedia ?
But that's obvious
Nice to have free editors. You do the work, they charge you for getting the new version. Capitalism with a mix of Socialism.
A moderation system, including a way to submit changes to articles. Basically, there would be a way for readers to "vote" for various metrics on articles, including accuracy, readability, etc. Also, the system would keep track of articles that are accessed more often. The moderation system would work like this: The more often an article is accessed, the more important it is assumed to be, and therefore, changes would need to get higher moderation points before becoming an officially accepted part of the article. Up to that point, there would be a list of pending changes at the bottom of articles, which readers could see. This is akin to the development/stable process used in software development, and it would perhaps increase the quality of articles.
Further, Wikipedia should figure out all kinds of business ventures to bring in money for further quality improvement. A Wikipedia magazine, containing random articles picked by a small staff; a dead-tree Wikipedia set, CDs and DVDs, and other junk that could be sold might bring in money to pay a staff of researchers to go through the entire encyclopedia and increase the detail level and quality of its contents.
Also, a method for adding pictures, videos, and other content to articles should be provided, so people can contribute original art, photographs, music, etc., or like items that are free/public domain. This would add value to the encyclopedia as a whole.
from article: After you submit an edited article, it goes through several steps. First, a researcher verifies the accuracy of the suggested changes. Then an editor reviews the article for issues such as readability and organization. Finally, the proofreading staff makes sure the article adheres to Encarta style. as i brush the dirt off myself after laughing so hard ... i click on the "Encarta Style Guide" link. its sad when you have to teach propper grammar to someone that wants to post to an ENCYCLOPEDIA of all things hehe. but thats just me.
:P
> disclaimer -> i am no grammar wizard so stfu
- You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
Can someone explain them that Linux and OSS are not the same.
And keep track of changes of these articles
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Does it seem like MS is starting to open up a bit? Or are they just front'n?
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
Will they be including an article about Willy on Wheels?
Your comment is the clearest example of flamebate I have evar witnessed.
You want me to pay you to allow me to write articles for your encyclopedia that you will in turn update and continue to charge me for? I think the only article that I will revise is the one on Microsoft. Let me see what it says...WTF?!?! I can't even view it without being a premium subscriber. No way I'm gonna pay $4.95 for this crap. Wikipedia will do just fine.
Also, Amazon-style "people who read this article also read..." links should guide people through the Wikipedia.
Google-style text links could be placed on the side of some articles.
The revenue from all of these activities could finance a staff of full-time researchers, photographers, developers, and so on, who could improve the quality and detail level of the reference as a whole. I know people here hate commercials, but they're small, text-only, and will help this free resource to grow into something that can rival the likes of the old-style Encyclopedia Britannica. I can see room for so much here; it will just take boatloads of money to make it work really well.
I didn't even realize there still was an Encarta? I thought it had been discontinued years ago. Goes to show how visible that product is. Does anyone actually care about CD-based encycolpedias anymore? It seem like anyone who would actually need one also has internet access and therefore, better reference material available.
"Wikipedia is not trying to sell the improvements made by users back to them."
m l?tid=95&tid=185
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/04/08/0013232.sht
Know what?
I think an encyclopaedia should stick to factual information, and not philosophical or political rants.
I sure hope they wouldn't put any of the type of drivel slashbots spew into Encarta.
There's too much of it in Wikipedia, which is good, because it guarantee's that anyone with a brain reading it will never, ever, forget that it's an amateur hack-job.
Never will (or should) you be able to cite Wikipedia in, say, your Master's thesis, and expect to pass.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This mirrors some of my experiences. Basically, what Larry Sanger said was right, only the phrasing "anti-elitist" was unfortunate.
WP discourages spending much time on an article. After all, the next guy will just pop his 5-minutes thoughts right into it, or as you said add trivia upon trivia or - frequently - paste some weirdo stuff or conspiracy, thus diluting the real content. They just covered your work in a piece of BS.
Even worse, if you or someone else doesn't "defend" your article, it could be completely defaced/rewritten when you're not watching. Proof of this is that often the best articles are the ones from the "lone hobbyist", writing undisturbed about her/his favorite subject.
No results were found for your search in Encarta.
versuse n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta>
ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encartahttp://
Forget being noncritical of Microsoft; let's ignore the competition, too! They don't even have anything on Linux save a mention in Open Source Software.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Isn't it a little late, since nobody cares about Encarta, despite all the free copies that go out with new PCs geared at families? I mean, there is absolutely no way Encarta will be able to keep up. People keep organizing and cooperating at the grassroots level, and they are taking away business opportunities! I mean the Internet is all about cutting out the middleman and replacing him with a machine programmed to not rip you off --a program that you can read for yourself.
SB: Dammit Bill! Our kids are all going to have to get real jobs if we don't kill this free and open Internet stuff!
BG: Just do whatever Wikipedia is doing, and I'll give it away as charity. You can write it off, and we'll AOL-spam the Wikipedia out of existence...
Except it's too late for that...
That you won't get completely false information about something depending on what time of day you look at the encyclopedia.
1. http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567422 _2/Monopoly.html 1 /Open_Source_Software.html%23p5 h .aspx?q=longhorn&Submit2=Go h .aspx?q=+U.S.+Department+of+Justice&Submit2=Go
2. http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_70161045
3.
4. http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/searc
5. http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/searc
Just because bill gates doesn't like linux doesn't mean everyone working for MS are a bunch of partisons
I just want to see them get caught copying some GFDL'ed material.
h .aspx?q=wikipedia&Submit2=Go
h .aspx?q=GFDL&Submit2=Go
And by the way, they don't know Wikipedia
http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/searc
or the GFDL
http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/searc
Encyclopedias shouldnt be critical of anything. They are supposed to be unbiased sources of useful information. Sending in some rant about virii and MS isnt useful information.
pwned.
All they need to do is add features like delivery to a cell phone; and they'll patent "having a user-editable encyclopedia's info accessible on a cell phone". Create enough of these, and they'll create a legal minefield that will empower them to shut down Wikipedia whenever they want.
"Hence there is a broad spectrum of opinions and views when in the end sort of balances out."
It's not the end, people are worrying about. It's being caught in the middle.
I tried looking up an article and saw that my "free pass" would expire in 2 hours.
So does this mean that if I write an article, I will be restricted from reading it later if I don't jump through Microsoft's hoops?
I'll stick with wikipedia...
Again, M$ trying to take advantage of whats out there already. The only thing worse than a software Cloner , is a Software Cloner that does it out in the open. Come on M$, try to "innovate" a little.
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
Right on.
Wikipedia was a great concept at first, but it's become such a big back-and-forth mess that I don't bother with it anymore. There's just too much worthless junk for it to be reasonably useful.
I'd rather use something trustable, like even Encarta, which is basically free on the internet unless you need the premium features. At least I can rest assured that the content is clean, organized, and reliable. I would definitely recommend against citing Wikipedia as an official source for any kind of research.
As far as I know according to the former pope's philosophy, only one guy returned from the grave like that; so it seems the darkest sacrelege for Encarta effectively announcing his reencarnation by calling him alive.
If he knew what Encarta says about him (and he probably can read it from heaven), I bet he'd turn over in his grave -- oops - perhaps that turning over is what Encarta's mistaking for life.
Encarta did an interesting step. They didn't actually "open" to feedback as they were already getting feedback, they are just trying to put this feedback into a channel they can control more easily. Microsoft does not change the license of Encarta, that is their right and a lot of people will be willing to accept that they have to pay for something they wrote. Or that they are not allowed to share the texts they contributed to.
...
BBC's H2G2 was also a non-free project and a lot of people were willing to contribute to that.
It will be interesting to see if Encarta can actually defend their policy of "letting someone else to do part of the work". Of course, there are much more ways to pay back the best contributors:
* Write 20 articles and your name will be in the Microsoft Blog about Encarta
* Write 200 articles and you might be considered to be hired by their fact-checking department
* Write 2000 articles
The point is that there is so much more reward in a destructive behavior from some points of view.
* Who will be the first to smuggle in wrong information into an article that gets published by encarta
* Who will be able to turn an article into a Microsoft-bashing pamphlet
* Who will be the first to initiate a scandal about cencorship and so on...
In the end, it's a nice idea which does not meet the current standards of wikipedia.
So... you WOULD cite Encarta in a thesis paper?
Sorry to rant here, but Wikipedia is a project from the community for the community. The Microsoft approach is more like, let the community do the job and we cash in on the work of the community. There is a huge difference, and the Microsoft management in their endless greed will never really get it...
They must be desperate. They don't use the "everything you write becomes our property" clauses that are so common with similar "look, we let you contribute for free to a product that we sell" systems.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This article text on Slashdot has the highest Anti-Microsoft slant as I've seen in a long time. Not only is Microsoft chastised with using a rather open submission style that happens to be very similar to Wikipedia, a facility Slashdot readers cling to for dear life as a champion of free thought, but a laundry list of rights that Microsoft assumes when you contribute is displayed in a way to render potential contributors with a strong feeling of vulnerability. Let Microsoft do what they want and if you want to contribute, do so. If you don't like Microsofts' project, then ignore it and go on your way. Afterall, actions (and inactions) speak louder than words. Save everyones time and don't make little pitiful stabs at Microsoft when they can't possibly defend themselves in this arena tailored to encourage only those thoughts which agree with yours (the average Slashdot regular) that often aren't neccessarily fair. So censor me and give me my negative moderation because I don't conform to the Slashdot norm, reinforce my point.
Does anyone know if the Goatse man has control of his bowels? I've been wondering for a couple years. Apparently he posts to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal, so maybe he's commented about it in the past.
my blog
...this is essentially the same process Wikipedia's predecessor, Nupedia used. After 18 months and $250000 they had a total of 12 articles to show for it.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
They will get a lot of little pattents around editable encyclopedias, including things like:
Sure, most of these patents will be bogus; but their mere presence will create a patent minefield that will either limit Wikipeda beyond belief if wikipedia chooses to avoid them - or enable Microsoft to shut down Wikipedia whenever they want with an endless stream of lawsuits.You give me what I want for nothing, I'll give you what you want only after I encumber it with all sorts of licensing restrictions.
Nobody wants to give a business something for free and have the business turn around and sell it for profit. Early Wikipedia contributors feared this was Jimbo Wales' stealth plan. This fear seems to have died down.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
it is actually much better than wikipedia. I say this becasue it is edited for content so you wont see goatse or other stupid stuff on an article about george bush. in addition it eliminates the "anti-elite bias" that was the topic of a recent article on the flaws of wikipedia here on slashdot. If someone is an expert in the field their content is not watered down by people who are not.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
now when my teacher says "You just copied this from Encarta. You fail." I can say "no, no, I wrote that article."
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I also see great similarities between this plan and Prodigy, an online service of the late eighties and early nineties. Prodigy had discussion forums called "clubs." A club was limited to a specific topic. There was no easy way to start a new one.
All the clubs were on bland, family-friendly, consumer-oriented topics. Nothing controversial or political or off-color.
And they hired people, who for want of a better word I'll call "censors," whose job was to patrol the clubs and remove off-topic notices.
Of course, any mention whatsoever that censorship was occurring, or any attempt to discuss it, was considered off-topic and quickly removed.
People frustrated with the tight control on the "club" system attempted to work around it by using mailing lists. As soon as that started, Prodigy promptly changed its policy, which had allowed unlimited free email, instituting a charge of something like $0.25 per email if you sent more than a rather small number of emails per month.
Attempting to impose quality-control on content from above, rather than moulding a self-sustaining community, didn't work very well for Prodigy.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Care to give some examples? All the entries I have seen are balanced and informative, including the ones on controversial subjects such as George W. Bush and evolution. Yes, some entries are longer or shorter than I would like to see, or lack a particular piece of information I was looking for, but the same goes for professional encyclopedia.
I'm still amazed a community encyclopedia works, but it does.
P.S.
Researching this reply revealed one flaw in Wikipedia: it does not have an entry for `proof by vehement assertion'. (And yeah, I'm too lazy to add it.)
So will Encarta now have articles that are more than 2 paragraphs long?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Encarta
hee hee!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"you grant Microsoft permission to use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission."
P ERS"
Here's my submission:
Dance around like a monkey, endlessly screaming "DEVELOPERS....DEVELOPERS....DEVELOPERS....DEVELO
I may give them these rights "grant Microsoft permission to use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission."
But one could still withold the rights for them to "sell" works without permission.
Why would I want to spend time to contribute something for free so that Microsoft can turn around and sell it for a profit?
What's next, and "community" site to allow programmers to write new applications for Microsoft to sell?
Apart from the legal bullshit, how is this different than Wikipedia???
There was a news item that Wikimedia will _sell_ Wikipedia DVDs just a day ago.
So my choise is:
a) write for Encarta and give all rights to Microsoft so they can profit from it,
or,
b) write for Wikipedia and give all rights to Microsoft so they can profit from it.
The only difference I see is that Encarta articles will probably be better written if they are checked by an editor.
Microsoft has no vision, no purpose (other than to steal or imitate the innovations of others and market the hell out of it) and is coded and cobbled together to produce an ineffective, buggy, half-assed, expensive product?
Linux and Mac addicts need to stop preaching to the choir and go out and convince all the clueless office toadies (and more importantly, the executives) that all things Microsoft are flawed by design and that it's finally time to move away from Microsoft products altogether.
There are superior non-MS alternatives to all software that corporate America needs, but clueless MBAs don't as a rule, know this. And in true MBA fashion, they expect to be "sold" a better idea. Even if it's obvious, it's up the the IT department to break a sweat and prove their case.
It's not really gonna change unless the suits finally understand how much lost productivity (profits) have gone down the drain by forcing their workers to use Microsoft's shitty productivity "tools".
When you click on this link encarta will keep quiet:
When you take the article ID 761567883 and past it into one of the edit-URLs auch as this one, you are free to see the whole article:
tataa!
Okay, this is pretty simple to fix*. So enjoy your time to "share the knowledge" or whatever Encarta encouraged you to do....
*=someone didn't do his homework....
MSN is to freely-edited Encarta as Google is to Wikipedia? Remember, Google is considering hosting parts of Wikipedia and relies on Wikipedia for many of its factual answers. Presumably, MS wants its own (proprietary, of course) equivalent for MSN search. As usual, Google is the innovator and MS is playing catch-up so that it won't be at a disadvantage. (And as usual, MS is wrapping its product in onerous licensing restrictions at the expense of users.)
Who is going to write something so that *nobody* (except Microsoft) can use - for free?
"Once thing I've noticed about wikipedia is that articles are updated within hours of new information or breaking news. I don't see that happening with Encarta, due to this reviewing process."
Well for a public built around the philosophy of cunsuming, the "quantity verses quality argument goes towards Wikipedia.
""you grant Microsoft permission to use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission.""
We're also going to make money off your work, which we now own in its entirety. Thanks, sucker.
Never will (or should) you be able to cite Wikipedia in, say, your Master's thesis, and expect to pass.
:)
I think people are overestimating WP here. It's definently not a "real" encyclopedia and if you put anything from WP in your paper without verifying various other resources, then you're a fool.
Imagine me writing my master's paper and quoting a Wikipedia article. I wonder what your professor would say
"You took this "fact" from a site where anyone can edit its content and the validity of that article depends if someone at Wikipedia thought this might be true?"
See what I mean.
But great resource none the less for personal stuff.
From the Terms of Use:
"To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft may monitor your e-mail, or other electronic communications and may disclose such information in the event it has a good faith reason to believe it is necessary for purposes of ensuring your compliance with this Agreement, and protecting the rights, property, and interests of the Microsoft Parties or any customer of a Microsoft Party."
So if I submit an article from my Hotmail account then it's ok for you to monitor it and see if I'm complying with this agreement? Sounds great sign me up!
Get a large number of people to write and submit articles that contain one or two small factual inaccuracies (wrong birthplaces, dates, whatever). Either they'll spend way too much time trying to find and stamp out those inaccuracies (even in legit articles), or they'll just put the inaccurate articles in their encyclopedia without checking them thoroughly. It's a win-win, if you're an evil bastard. >:)
. . . to get people to cut-and-paste articles from Wikipedia. Hey, instant content!
hey i totally agree. high school text books are especially bad (and boring because of it) because they always avoid controversy. just give me the information. i'll sort through and choose what i like.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
In too many subject areas, Wikipedia is a miserable failure. A seething dictatorial orgy of spastic, ideological despots who dominate the controversial topics with insufferable belligerence.
Space, time and truth are no match for the WikiTroll.
Seriously, all MS has ever done is copy or hijack what other software companies are already doing, using their megabucks and brand leverage to roll over their competitors.
How long will it be before they realize that having an army of software developers is bad for their bottom line?
The offering of MS/Linux Windows will be proof of the "Acceptance" phase. So the new model, is:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
6. ???
7. Profit!
in the next year as well. It is only a matter of time before some company realizes the value of it and decides to contribute to it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
soo... its like wikipedia, except dominated by bill gates?
If users like wikipedia, and MS relies on the users to write their encyclopedia(to save them money because we all know they need it), why would anyone write in it, especically if anything they write becomes Microsoft's to do whatever they want with?
I'm glad they have editors, or else the GNAA would send them to hell.
I wouldnt trust anything in a Microsoft Encyclopedia. They have already rewritten computer history... I think that in the article about Microsoft they claim to have invented the personal computer, they claim to have invented the mouse and the GUI. They are not to be believed...
I can imagine how slanted their views on politics and human nature articles are...
Microsoft is a shifty, selfish and self-aggrandizing corporate monopoly...
Michael A. Uman
Sr Software Engineer
softwaremagic.net
Look up abortion, no matter where you stand on the issue, it's hard to call the Wiki article a simple statement of fact, as it degenerates into a pro-life rant complete with phrases like "baby murderers"
Then you have people who constantly troll and deface wiki articles. They're usually fixed fairly quickly, but its still a PITA. I read the George Bush one before it was fixed, and it was by far a mature dictionary entry. It read like your average slashdot post.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
1/ Scientific journals work the same way. Researchers actually write the articles, and review others' articles. For free. And the journals cost a pile of cash each month. Does it make sens ? Nope. Things are actually changing (JMLR rules)
2/ There are lot of actual MS-enthusiasts. I can not understand their point of view, but lot of people are able to believe that a corporation is friendly. I can imagine somebody who is fond of Encarta (which seems to be a nice product) and from that considers as natural to participate.
3/ Some are passionated for certain topics and want it to appear to a general audience.
People who write freewares for windows also works for free, as those who post comments on Amazon or imdb, etc. They do it because they like it, and the corporation makes money because their own products become more attractive (though this is a bit more indirectly, but it is very similar).
Cheers,
--
Go Debian!
Before Microsoft files a patent ''Method and procedure for creating a reader-created/editable'' reference material?
1) Write article and copyright it
2) Using a psuedonym, add portions of article to Encarta
3) Sue Microsoft for copyright infringement
4) Profit!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Slightly off-topic, but I just thought about it: there are some commercial sites (like answers.com) that mirror Wikipedia content. Shouldn't we (when we don't want to write new content) view/link-to the articles in those sites, to reduce Wikimedia's costs?
Do answers.com pay Wikimedia for the content?
we're now encouraging users to submit suggestions for actual changes to our encyclopedia articles. We're very interested in hearing your opinions on how to create a thriving community of people that are passionate about building a great reference source
While we appreciate the enthusiasm, unforunately you are doomed because nobody wants to write an encylopedia for you for free and hand over all their rights to you, never mind having to buy it back later.
Encarta has already fallen far behind Wikipedia, and this have-baked attempt at glasnost falls far short of what it would take to rescue it. Sorry. Encarta is doomed.
Good thing too. The world's knowledge was created by the world's people and belongs to the world's people, not to some random corporation.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
you grant Microsoft permission to use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission. ... along with others to download their database and do the same thing? Or do you give only Microsoft the right for the material if added? I mean, that's a pretty important thing with Wikipedia...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
They have got people paying to work for them?
This is a test!
1) Create an environment
2) Allow others to do the content creation
3) Sell use of/access to system
4) Profit!
What an amazing business plan. Same one used by Slashdot, Fark, et al.
Just wish I could think of a good one.
As someone who is heavily involved with WIkipedia, I have to ask myself - why the hell would anyone want to contribute to Encarta? People contribute to Wikipedia because it's (a) free (libre and gratis) and (b) because we've established a reputation of not being evil. So why would someone contribute to Encarta? To boost Microsoft's bottom line? I'm sorry, but I think they're going to have a very hard time attracting anyone willing to help, because I can't really see much incentive to do it.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Never rely on ANY encyclopedia if you need trusted information.
are you telling me I can now write stuff that Microsoft will SELL and I might get authorship credit? Does Mr. Gates' company think my ego is THAT much bigger than my wallet or that I just love MS that much?
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
n/t
But people who give of their time to Microsoft are performing charity for billionaires. Clever devils, Redmond: they understand one of the core appeals of the Wiki and open source movements is community, a value so debased in our right wing society that its resurrection in these projects is something of a bright hope.
There are two problems with the Encarta scheme. One, Microsoft is exploiting unpaid work for its own gain. And two, more critically, Microsoft's notorious censorship (cf. the pruning of disagreeable words from its Office dictionaries), dishonesty in public policy (cf. attempts to control open source) and irresponsibly-used economic might (cf. antitrust behavior in the US and EU) cast a long shadow over its ability to objectively shepherd any body of knowledge.
Moral: don't do free work for bullies.
A-S-S-I-M-I-L-A-T-E-D
Compensation is IRELLEVANT. Pursuit of Justice is FUTILE...
Don't EVER publish your own novels or such on ms' site, for given their requirements, you could publish the world's next best novel and be screwed their heavy-handedness. Or, you could post an idea covering the history of gaming and sims, only to find them developing your idea behind your back and then pointing to the contract.
Don't contribute to them. Apparently, they don't want or don't need PUBLIC DOMAIN material and seem, rather, to be fishing for new content at the expense of the contributor.
Can anyone really trust microsoft to be fair, honest, and such about ideas that come to them and they perceive to be worth millions, but the contributor is clueless? When does "survival of the fittest" take a back seat to integrity?
David Syes
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I should have posted my previous comment here...
1 45 464&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=109&mode=thread& cid=12183036
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Searched Encarta for 'autofellatio' No results were found for your search in Encarta.
Hi folks. This is Aaron Patterson, the Program Manager from the Encarta blog. We noticed there was a pretty vigorous discussion going on over at Slashdot so I wanted to chime in with a couple comments.
First -- about that Bud Light Real Men of Genius comment earlier, I was literally on the verge of rofl'ing when I read that. Our product unit manager bought me a commemorative Bud Light to celebrate. So thanks for the good humor.
On the more substantive points brought up, first I want to stress that we realize community editing will live or die based on the feedback of people who are interested in using it. So there's a lot of stuff brought up in this thread that's very relevant to us. We're going to be posting more to our blog soon (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Encarta) to follow up on a lot of the points made here and solicit feedback... I encourage anyone who has an interest to keep an eye on that blog and get involved in this discussion with us.
There are also two things I want to bring up here. I saw several people raising two issues with what we're doing that deserve some discussion. One is a question about why someone would want to contribute free labor to Encarta, when we then turn around and make money off of their contributions.
We're a commercial product, so generating revenue's important to us. We're not going to stop making money off of Encarta in the near future. But let me ask you guys this--would it change things if we gave some money back? We've discussed this several times internally, and many of us on the product team and editorial staff find it appealing, because we want to fairly compensate people who do good work. The devil is in the details of how you do that, though, since an article is contributed to by many people. Do you guys have any thoughts on how a compensation model might work?
(Also, for those who would like to read and edit all our articles without paying, did you know that you have access to all of them for free using MSN Search? Just run your search using the Encarta tab: http://search.msn.com/encarta/results.aspx?FORM=EN HP&q=)
The second thing which was brought up here was this question about how the content is licensed. This is another thing we've had some discussions about, and we're very open to feedback on what approach we should take here. Again, we're a commercial product, so we can't just GFDL the whole thing and say anyone can use everything even if it might conflict with our commercial interests. But we understand the fair desire contributors have to be able to reuse their own contributions. It's also probably going a little far if we say that someone can update three words in an article and then have all the rights they want to that whole article, but maybe broader licensing rights would make sense for the most active contributors? Do you have any thoughts on how a balance could be struck between these requirements?
We're really interested in reading any responses this generates. Our intent is to take a great reference source and make it even better with the help of the many smart people out there that use reference works. Since there are clearly many people in the Slashdot community who are thinking about this stuff, we'd like to start here.
Thanks for the feedback,
Aaron Patterson
Microsoft Encarta PM
Much of Wikipedia is overrun by perennial wackos. It's a hopeless mess. Whole portions dealing with controversial areas of science, culture and politics have been abandoned by all but the overlords and transient newbies. A tiny bit of moderation goes a long way, Encarta will capitalize on that.
"A community page that cant criticize itself and its creator(s), really dont have anything to do with being a community. This is just Microsoft wanting free articles."
Is that the purpose of an Encyclopedia, or is that the purpose of an editorial?
"... you grant Microsoft permission to use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission."
Something was omitted from that: "Microsoft, a company that has shown itself to be extremely adversarial, can make money from your work, but you won't."
If you will make donations to Microsoft, will you also make donations to AOL? Or, why not send money directly to Bill Gates, so he can improve the quality of his life style?
"Dns cache poisoning" now contains
"#redirect [[DNS cache poisoning]]"
Kinda like Wikipedia contains absolutely no articles that are slanted and POV'ed against Microsoft and the United States (to use just two examples).
The Wikipedia technorati "overlords" do the song and dance of requiring "NPOV" while linking to their own definitions of relevant terms and even use their absolutely ridiculous conflict resolution "system" that generates more chuckles than results, but your average contested article continues to live in never-ending pointless revert wars that have the great effect of displaying factually wrong information when you happen to load them at any given time of day.
I'll take an effectively moderated encyclopedia over the useless anarchist hippie fest that is Wikipedia any day.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
In fact, there were many earlier reports about planets that were later rebuffed, so much so that the most recent reports were examined VERY carefully.
The relativitistic effects on gravity and time are constantly re-checked. Think of the phantom planet Vulcan, which turned out to be relativistic effects instead. The major discoveries in Astronomy have often been this interaction between observation and theory, with theory predicting things that are later checked by observation... and observation reporting failures in theory. When the "correction" to a theory is made, we then try to observe that in a reproduceable way.
Now, it's true that once a reading is made in history, you can't go back and make more readings; accurately recording data is critical. And I'd agree with you that the observational sciences have a lot in common with forensics, particularly archaelogy.
But try to get someone to accept a big change in archaelogy: "Look! We found a digital watch in King Tut's tomb! The ancient Egyptians were making integrated circuits!" I feel very confident that such big changes wouldn't be accepted without LOTS more digs confirming the hypothesis. In other words, reproduceable experiments.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)