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!"
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
What are the odds that they'd approve this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx
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
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.
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?
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?)
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
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.
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.
..Thank goodness for innovation!
now wheres that patent application?
Starsucks
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.