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."
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!"
Yeah, for a group of people who hate Microsoft, they sure do talk about it a lot.
"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.
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
First of all: chill down. This link leads to a real artivle not an offensive image.
Second: I must say that Wiki serves me pretty well especially with some cryptic webtrends/names wich I sometimes don't get the first time. It's a great source if you want to know more about things you wouldn't find in any other encyclopedia. This is where Encarta will come in second place I guess.
An article, by Microsoft (or published by), criticizing Microsoft? I really dont think so.
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.
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
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.
- Denial
- Anger
- Bargaining
- Depression
- Acceptance
I don't know that a business can be depressed in the emotional sense of the word, but I think Microsoft's strategy RE:Linux has fit this overall theme. I'd say MS is currently moving into the Barganing stage. Hopefully Acceptance won't be that far off. OneMicrosoft's inital position on Linux has been harsh, but do remember, Linux is 1)direct competition to Windows and 2)has a radically differnt philosophy that basically attacks the core of Microsoft's business model. How would anyone here feel if someone sprang up in direct competion to the way you live your life? How do any of us react to luddites and technophobes? Very similarly in spirit to MS's initial reaction to Linux.
But the shock is starting to where off and Microsoft is realizing that Linux isn't going away. So their learning and changing.
The changes in Encarta aren't just about embracing wiki. Microsoft's corporate buzzwords, the backbone of the feature set promoted in Office 2003 are integration and colaboration. Microsoft is simply extending that.
Free MacMini
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.