Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Printing Wikipedia

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the where-have-i-heard-that-idea-before dept.

rtnair writes "Entries from Wikipedia, the popular free online encyclopedia written and edited by Internet users, may soon be available in print for readers in the developing world, founder Jimmy Wales said on Monday."

11 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, "free" knowledge in no longer limited to developed world, where they have access to something called internet.

  2. Problems by springbox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like Wikipedia, but it usually ends up being a good idea to double check the information presented there some times. It certainly has some errors (like the "prant" statement for the Mathematica hello world program), but if you present this in book form to a thrid world country, which I'm assuming doesn't have internet access because of this, then it would be way too easy for people to take everything inside of it as error free facts.

  3. Wouldn't it make more sense.... by teewurstmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... to invest in the development of that $100 computer that the MIT is developing (http://news.com.com/The+100+laptop+moves+closer+t o+reality/2100-1044_3-5884683.html)? By the time Wikipedia is printed, it will already be out of date. Maybe investing in cheap internet terminals and a couple of printers would make more sense...

    --
    Get a free Video iPod!
  4. Re:800,000 English articles by Pichu0102 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're right, it is considerably large for an English printed version of Wikipedia.
    However, most likely the printed Wikipedias will be in the other Wikipedia languages, which contain considerably less articles than the English version.
    It'll still be a large book no matter what language it's in, but it will be considerably smaller than the English version of Wikipedia.

  5. True, but not a big deal by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just yesterday Iw as reading an article on homeostasis, and ran into some obviously erronious material. The article had been defaced (one point even had "ALEX IS GAY" in huge letters"). So, I went in to edit the article, but the copy in the edit tab did not have the errors. At first I thought it was some kind of bug, so I refreshed the article to try to edit it again. To my surprise, it had already been fixed.

    Now, I can not say for sure how long it had been defaced before I got there, but that experience left me with the impression that, while you do need to be careful, there are lots of people looking after Wikipedia.

    And just to be frank... when you say but it usually ends up being a good idea to double check the information presented there some times, I hope you realize that that should be true with *any* source of information. A critical reader should never trust any one source. Every source has bias, and even if it is 100% factual, every source presents the material with its own slant on the facts.

    Of course wikipedia sould neve rbe your sole source, but neither should Britannica, or any other single source.

    1. Re:True, but not a big deal by haggar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you realy believe that edits like "LINUX IS TEH GHEY" are what is the problem? Those that have vandalism written all over them arenot a problem at all. The ones that are a problem, are the edits that you have not even noticed. And the inaccuracies which you have not noticed. For example, in that article on homeostasis, "stasis" is erroneously implied to be a prefix, which it is not. I found this in 15 seconds. If I spent more time, I would find dozens of minor inaccuracies like this, and then would have to spend some time correcting them, but I digress.

      Vandalism which is hard to spot is the apparently correct information, throwin in together with a bunch of irrelevant but correct edits. Those you won't notice, unless you have been maintaining the article from it's inception.

      --
      Sigged!
    2. Re:True, but not a big deal by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem I have with wikipedia is that there is clearly a bias amongst both the users and editors.

      A friend of mine used to run a popular local BBS. I helped to write the article about it, because I wasn't associated with it, my perspective was a little more "NPOV" than his. Then, a day later, some users get mad, because of the controversial opinions that were associated with this BBS and puts it up for VfD. The VfD wasn't going well for the article (most people were voting to delete because they never heard of it, the primary chief cop out reason). Then an editor comes along and decides its a candidate for "Speedy Deletion" and it gets deleted pretty quickly. The reason was non-notability.

      This is rediculous because, as you state, a non-existant soccer player gets ZERO questions because its not controversial or expresses any opinions against the grain of Wikipedia groupthink. Considering how popular the BBS was back in the day, the arguments were totally rediculous. The editors and users voting on the VfD were citing cross-links in Google as a guide for "notability" of something that existed before the Internet was a mainstream (or even something that you or me could access). Then you have to also note the number of other articles that are totally pointless in terms of cultural relevance to anything - less than the BBS in question was.

      Until Wikipedia fixes issues like these, I will never take them seriously. Yes, I have tried to talk to some of the higher ups, they are no better. They just call you a "troll" and ignore you.

      Wikipedia is the perfect example of pitifully poor organizational structure marred by populist tendencies and groupthink.

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
  6. Defeating the purpose in one fell swoop. by kinglink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wasn't the original idea of the site that you could have anyone edit the document and fix errors or add information. I understand we have trolls too but the purpose of the site was simply that.

    Now we have them trying to give this tool to foreign countries but first off it's a encyclopedia, no single book will hold a good enough amount of the knowledge anyways. But more importantly with in a year most of the information will have changed multiple times on that site.

    Hell the best thing about that site is if you search a current event you tend to get precise info even if the events have happened that day. That alone makes the site worthwhile, however the book will have none of these features and likely just become a normal encyclopedia. Sadly I have to say there's no reason for that. It's an encyclopedia that nerds wrote but from what I've seen it's not statistically better then a real encyclopedia. In fact because it's open to all to write it's statistically worse for the reader because there's no validation exception a public consesus.

    Why that's bad is easy, Public consesus tends to be less then 100 percent perfect. Salem Witch Trials, LA riots, and so on. There are leaders who watch over the site, but I still don't believe it to be worthwhile to take out all the uniquest features on that site and try to make a book out of it....

    Now a autoupdating PDA with the full information of the site? that'd be bitchin'....

  7. Sometimes I feel wikipedia can't be fixed by haggar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have just finished editing the nationalistic ramblings (disguised as "facts") in a wikipedia entry about a famous scientist and engineer, whose name shall stay secret. I know, however, that this nationalistic vandal will be back, do his edits and then I would have to do mine all over again. Except, at one point I will give up, because I will realize that it's pointless, and I don't have all the time in the world to maintain that entry and protect it from defacement.

    As a longtime and way too busy Wikipedia contributor, I say: let it die, or then do some extensive and expensive maintainance. Basically, it will have to resamble more the printed things which Slashdot users so like to deride.

    --
    Sigged!
    1. Re:Sometimes I feel wikipedia can't be fixed by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think vadanlism is so much of a problem, because that can be more or less easily removed by many different people. I think it's more of a problem that poor editing can bring down the content of Wikipedia overall. Someone who is both an expert in their field and also a great writer can post some brilliant prose, with subtle and precise meanings throughout, that accurately expresses the current consensus of experts in their field. And then someone else can come along and blow away all the subtle distinctions without knowing better. And it's somewhat difficult to remove the less experienced person's edits, because reverting well-intentioned edits can be very contentious unless you can clearly state why the new edits should be removed (which requires still more brilliant writing).

  8. How many 3rd world countries has he been to? by wocky.jabber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In many so-called 3rd world countries like China, India, Thailand, internet access is available in many places so they don't need the printed Wikipedia. In places where internet access is not available, they are really too poor and too busy just staying alive to read Wikipedia. Waste of money. The money would be better spent providing a selected villages with internet access. Then they can get to read the real Wikipedia. Printing Wikipedia is going two steps backwards