Slashdot Mirror
Britannica Goes After Wikipedia and Google
kzieli writes "Britannica is going to allow viewers to edit articles, with changes to be reviewed by editors within 20 minutes. There is also a bit of a rant against Google for ranking Wikipedia above Britannica on most search terms."
Well Jorge, first of all you take a swipe at Google for respecting the very encyclopedia that you yourself are tacitly acknowledging is at least somewhat superior (by imitating it). Then you show just how PROFOUNDLY out of touch you are by insisting that your changes will require editorial review (unless you're about to expand your editorial staff with thousands of new hires, you must not be expecting much participation).
Sorry, but this is just pathetic. If this is the best you can do online, just stick with what you do best (the printed page). Admittedly, Brittanica has always been a great source for academic quality articles, especially back when basic information was hard to come by. But this sort of half-hearted effort only highlights just how much you still don't "get it."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
or a few 100 million? just to be fair? & just what is a fair day's pay?
Wikipedia isn't interested in truth, only facts.
-1, Didn't Read the Article
The changes won't appear on the site until they have been reviewed by someone paid by Britannica.
They must really be on the ropes. They're into full-on me-tooism, but obviously don't get what makes Wikipedia awesome at all.
-Peter
Google ranks Wikipedia articles higher than Britannica articles because Wikipedia.com is linked to more than Britannica.com.
In fact I would wager good money that Wikipedia.con is one of the top 5 linked to domains PERIOD, probably shortly after sites like cnn.com, myspace.com, facebook.com
Google doesn't just manually set it's rankings. They're set by the web. If Britannica wants higher rankings they need to get more people to link to them as an authority.
Specialists editors.
Unless they plan to hire Stephen Hawking, i don't see how this is going to work.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
according to the article. Wikipedia says 1606.
Starting in High School we were taught never to do research off an encyclopedia. You use it to get a general idea about the topic which will help guide you to more appropriate sources for your research.
Britannica has been putting themselves on the high ground when they really weren't so high up. While Britannnica may have better researched articles, however Wikipedia for the most part does a good job at what encyclopedias are good for. A way to get a basic understanding of the topic so you then can go further in and do some real research.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Quote: "If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia," he said."Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?"
I don't know...maybe that's because a few hundred million people visit Wikipedia every year, and maybe because someone like me, who remembers when Lynx was the only web browser available, has never actually gone to Brittanica's website? Just maybe? Perhaps if they resolved their rectal-cranial inversion and made an accessible, easy to use, accurate product their PageRank might improve?
Bill
There is also a bit of a rant against Google for ranking Wikipedia above Britannica on most search terms.
Well, I guess that Google doesn't like to read teaser summaries that demand a paid subscription to read "premium content" any more than I do.
Wisdom of the crowd wins again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd
Respected journals such as 'Nature' have (finally) acknowledged they they have published bogus or falsified claims in the past. I'm sure all here know the exmaples, plus of course patent research on prior art, FOSS... Huge pressure exists now for scientific, and other publications, to go this way. Which of course, raises other questions - like what's the 'final' version of 'the truth'?
Where the Britannica guys (may) have the edge is that they claim all submissions will be reviewed by editors, (although not subject experts). Will they be able to keep pace with the volume of submissions?
I just checked Britannica.com and I can see another reason why people avoid it - it's terrible for access, where as Wikipedia is a nice and simple browsable site, much closer to a reference book with cross-reference links.
You hit the front page of Brittanica.com and you get two Flash movies (which I don't see because I use Gnash and have it set to pause on load and not play) and the side panel animates itself open. I decide to try and browse and I can't because the Flash is rendered above the "browse" pop-up layer. I do a search and there's no obvious search button, you just have to hit the Enter key and assume it'll work. Rather than giving you results or the page you want it gave me a quick "light box" animation before popping up another layer. Once I do get to the article it takes ages to load because of the adverts and a slow caching site (ironically) and then it proceeds to plaster its "pay for premium" advert over what I was just about to read! When you close the "pay for premium" layer it won't even go away - apparently details about "encyclopedia" are a premium topic and so it keeps popping back every few seconds!
With an interface like that there's no wonder people prefer Wikipedia given that it's "accurate enough" for most people's needs.
In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, the Hitchhiker's Guide has already supplanted the great Encyclopaedia Britannica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects.
First, it is slightly cheaper; and second, it has the words DON'T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.
Scholarpedia looks set to address this difference, it is already quite good in its early stages. Essentially wikipedia where only scholars can edit.
Britannica is now out of date. The FLASH ADS on their site are abrasive and annoying; I will refuse to visit there site anymore due to this behaviour alone.
I was very careful in my word choice. But maybe I should have said, "Top men."
-Peter
that they are somehow less relevant in most of the cases than the up-to-date Wikipedia. Classic encyclopedias fall short on providing up-to-date information, even in their online versions. There is simply no way an organization like Britannica could hire so much editors to cover all the articles what's already covered in Wikipedia.
Out of curiosity I visited www.britannica.com and did a sample search. The result came up, but when I tried to scroll down the article, it faded away and an offer for a "Free Trial" wafted into view. I'm not sure how long the free trial is, but they want to charge you a nickel less than $12/month, or $70/year or bundled with Merriam-Webster for $85/year. I don't see how they expect a casual user to pay these prices when Wikipedia and Wiktionary only ask for donations.
I'll use the free services for most things. If one needs further verification, there are external references available.
There are valid reasons that Wikipedia appears before Britannica on Google search results.
One of them is that if users wanted to pay for their information, then they would have already taken out a subscription with somebody like Britannica. And then they would be using their paid subscription to Britannica by using their search engine and NOT searching for free information on Google.
It's not just the interface. Try reading the article for, say, Germany. Premium content? Are you fucking kidding me? You expect to be a competitor to Wikipedia when you add nag screens that pop up constantly demanding you pay? Though it looks like someone could write a GreaseMonkey script that would make it readable.
they're going to have an expert review it in 20 minutes?
What about a change to some obscure British scifi novel, like The Last Legionary? (By Douglas Hill)
This is never gonna work.
(* I have made changes to both of those pages in wikipedia, and though obscure topics, it wasn't long before further changes were made clarifying my own poorly written points.)
Britannica is known as a hard copy encyclopedia. The type of resource that you go to the library for. Wikipedia has marketed itself as the online leader for encyclopedia type lookup... Wikipedia is what people want (thus higher page rankings on Google). Britannica has a long way to go in changing the way people look at them before they will be competitors on the web. they should have started this long ago if they wanted to establish a presence.
They aren't the only ones, one of the biggest selling points traditional encyclopedia's had was that they weren't wikipedia if they emulate it too closely they will disenfranchise that audience.
Anyone who is happy with the encyclopedic equivalent of lucky dip is already gushing about the 'awesomeness' of Wikipedia, they are not about to start helping elsewhere. Although perhaps some of the authors with genuine knowledge who have given up on Wikipedia's editfests might be interested in a more closely controlled equivalent.
The changes won't appear on the site until they have been reviewed by someone paid by Britannica.
So... skilled editors in the field of question, or your basic "anti-vandalization basic fact-check" paid editors? This is not entirely unlike the way Wikipedia can lock or semi-lock some pages where it's necessary. With all due respect to the ways wikipedia isn't that great, there's no way wikipedia or britannica could afford an editor staff to check every edit on something of wikipedia's size. I guess they have to limit the scope of their user input process greatly, until it's basicly what it's already - a collection of traditional encyclopedic material that is no match for the versatility of wikipedia. Despite the notability trolls, wikipedia carries so much information on so much more of greater and lesser, particularly lesser, importance.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Mortimer Adler is the author of numerous books such as, "How to Read a Book", and I believe he was once an editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Alas, despite writing many good books, Adler was maddeningly patronizing towards his readers. For Britannica to let the great unwashed masses actually modify one of his sacred texts almost makes me giddy.
disabling scripts stops the pop-up and you can surf the whole thing without interuption...
me thinks they just don't know much about the internet. ironic.
Back in the earlier day of the web encylopedia Americana was free. Britannica was a pay site. Then Britannica went free and it was dominant. But for most of this decade Britannica has not been a free site, which means links are low value.
Further:
1) Wikipedia has vastly more articles than Britannica. It isn't even close.
2) Wikipedia covers a wider range of topics.
3) Wikipedia articles are longer and more detailed
4) Wikipedia articles are much more web friendly with their "see also" web references.... In many ways playing the role yahoo used to play
5) Wikipedia articles offer history and talk pages which can provide tons of additional information
I can't see why Britannica would even think that in 2009 they should rank above Wikipedia. Wikipedia vs. Britannica discussions were interesting in 2005/6 and you could make a case. Today they aren't even close. Wikipedia functions reasonably well against specialized encyclopedias in their specialties.
I have always been a strong supporter of Britannica. I've bought lots of their products over the years and still use their encyclopedia on my laptop as a mobile solution. But they really aren't in the same league anymore as reference works. I think Columbia Encyclopedia makes a fantastic one volume reference work but I wouldn't rate it not to Britannica. Quantity matters.
__________
Even assuming they started to get a flood of content I don't see how they would deal with it. Are they really ready to fact check say 1000 pages of new content a day? If they want to do what they are talking about they need to do something like partner with http://en.citizendium.org/
Britannica could create a distinctive advantage for citizendium and at the same time Singer has put in place enough people to help with content additions.
I just did a quicky informal comparison. Searched Britannica for a few terms that I know Wikipedia has good articles about (because I read them recently). And I don't mean the pop-culture kinds of terms that Wikipedia is really great for (just try to find an article about, say, Bubba Ho-tep, in Britannica.)
ADO(ActiveX Data Objects): nothing at all. Much ado about Shakespeare, though.
OLE DB: nothing at all.
But it did suggest an article about "decibel" (the unit of measurement.) Ok, let's see what it's got: One brief paragraph. Textually describes the math (rather than giving an equation). Doesn't really explain at all _why_ people like decibel measurements. Mentions the confusing 10*log vs 20*log thing for powers and amplitudes, but doesn't deign to explain why it is that way.
Wikipedia: Lengthy, informative, and as far as I can see, completely accurate.
That is why people link to Wikipedia. And that is why it has a high Google rank.
Perhaps with more user contributions Britannica can catch up somewhat, but it'll be one hell of an uphill climb at this point.
I would wonder even HOW they plan to review changes. Aside from the sheer volume issue (Good morning editors, each of you will be reviewing 14,850 edits in the next 8 hours), there is also the question of exactly HOW they can practically review technical changes for accuracy, without a wide variety of specialists on staff. Are they going to phone up a physicist every time someone changes a few sentences on the "Quantum Mechanics" article? And how are they going to deal with academically debated topics? Wikipedia does it by democracy, basically. But, with editors, Britannica is now going to be faced with editors having to "choose sides" on debates which they know nothing about.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
and then teachers jelous that people who havnt spent there life sucking up for tenure can edit and create a good encyclopedia, ban it
Of course whats handy about wikipedia is that it almost always includes a good handful of links (and often meatspace citations as well) that makes it very easy to dig right into that additional research.
But...but..Jorge's overpaid hip web designers and marketing committees said that flash is in and everyone loves it. His no-nonsense MBAs claim that teaser summaries will increase sales, but to never give a whole article away for free.
Some companies deserve to fold. This is your classic "we wont adopt to the new web-based market, we'll just keep doing what we've always done and use the web purely as a sales and marketing platform."
Shame really. If they would get re-do their annoying site and give more content for free (say a 60 or 90 day trial for free with no obligations/cc numbers) it might be interesting. Its incredible to me that the trial is 7 days and that its just a way to give you the hard sell for a $1,000 set of books.
These guys just dont get it.
Now Britannica can start to get their quality down to Wikipedia's level. We can all look farward to dilligently researched and professionaly written articles about minor characters from Star Wars spin-off novels.
So true. The first step whenever I start researching something is almost always a Wikipedia search, and it just branches off from there. Works better than just picking links at random from a Google search.
We are far indeed from knowing the extents of the Internet's potential, but know it's large enough to make the largest reference work in human history spring up out of nowhere. There's hardly a better time to experiment. If this goes wrong, the Britannica staff if anyone should be able to tell and they have an encyclopedia-wide revision to fall back on.
The rebellious air of Wikipedia's earlier years has dissipated, and editors no longer (widely) see the site as a competitor to Britannica. Both are used to provide information (yes, yes, Power Rangers Pokemon hur hur.) If one of them invents a way to do so better, hooray! Everybody wins.
They're going to look it up on Wikipedia.
"it has already supplanted the "Brittannica" as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate; it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two respects. First, it is slightly chearper" ... and the next part really doesn't apply ...
Yeah. Because ADO is
Just looking at Britannica.com's home page will reveal why they aren't ranked as well as Wikipedia. Upwards of 90% of the home page content is irrelevant to the majority of users, who are there because they want to look something up, not look at the video of the day, play with the "Featured" flash movie, or read about how Britannica is involved in Advocacy for Animals. This is an excellent example of web design molded around the needs of internal customers and requirements rather than the needs of the end user. The flash movies swoop in as they load, drawing attention away from the user's goal: the search box in the upper-middle of the screen, which itself is visually subservient to the arrogant "Premium Membership - Free Trial" button in the upper-right.
Both google and wikipedia did it right. Give the user a search box, a logo, and some language options. Trust them to explore your system on their own.
So I don't think until this day I actually used any Encyclopedia Britannica content from the Google search results. Any website that requires a subscription for content should not complain that Google doesn't link to their site enough.
Interesting thing though, while I looked up a couple of terms of interest on Encyclopedia Britannica (specifically 'astronaut' and 'space shuttle'), there was a pop-up every so often telling me I was viewing premium content and to get full access (no annoying pop-up) I should try their free trial of the premium service. I could just click the x and close that pop-up for another 20-30 seconds. What I liked most was when I told Firefox to 'Save Page As' and saved the page then opened it from the downloads window, that annoying pop-up no longer plagued me while I continued to read the full article.
Regards,
Ryan Pritchard
Fun Extends All Basic Life Expectancies
You forgot to mention that when you scroll down the page, it keeps loading content in, and makes you wait for it each time. Also, in 1024*768 at least, the info window is woefully small.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
You realise of course that even though there isn't a formal expert review process at Wikipedia, the project is *loaded* with experts. You can barely move without tripping over a Ph.D. Hence Wikipedia's other name, "Unemployed Ph.D Death Match."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I interviewed there a couple months ago for a strategic product manager. Basically, they wanted someone to come in and help them figure out how to beat Wikipedia and reclaim the spot as reference provider of the world. It's pretty funny that this major strategic decision got made a few short months after they hired someone else (presumably). The real problem, and I told them this while interviewing, is that they are requiring people to pay for content, and wikipedia charges nothing, for "good-enough-for-most-people" content. Not to mention, as other posters here said, that wiki has WAY MORE articles.
Good luck Britannica. It would be sad to see such a staple of modern culture fall by the wayside of technology. There's something kind of cool about the rows of Encyclopaedia Britannica volumes on a bookshelf in a library on a dusty shelf. That doesn't mean it's useful, just that there's something weighty about that "brand".
And they're just so nice about how they show a login dialogue every two seconds if you happen to be browsing an article that's at all off the beaten path.
I would wonder even HOW they plan to review changes. Aside from the sheer volume issue... there is also the question of exactly HOW they can practically review technical changes for accuracy, without a wide variety of specialists on staff.
Wikipedia. Cross check with Google. Jeesh, this kind of research isn't rocket surgery any more.
The real issue here is that the "authoritative" (emphasis on the quotation marks) status of Wikipedia as THE place to go for information in the sense that it will in time be generally accurate. If Britannica is successful, Wikipedia's status will be diluted. Case in point: probably 90% or more of Slashdot users use Google for general web searches, while going to Wikipedia for encyclopaedia research, IMDB for movie research, Sourceforge for open source product research, etc.... We know better than to put up with a MSN or Yahoo query (unless the Google search came up unsatisfactory). If the Wikipedia results are unsatisfactory, we research and add to the article, making it more complete and authoritative. Are we going to feel compelled to verify that Britannica is correct as well? (keep in mind that Britannica would never have allowed free access, let alone editable content if it weren't for the success of Wikipedia). Do we really care that MSN and Yahoo perform poorly for most queries other than perhaps looking up the latest Katy Perry video or editorial content? This, of course, comes with a massive theoretical cost to freedom by concentrating the power with a small number of authorities (Google and Wikipedia, for example) but with the benefit of optimizing accuracy and reducing time required to "authoritate" the web.
If you Google for "Encyclopedia" Wikipedia comes above Britannica. If you Google for "Encyclopaedia", Britannica comes above Wikipedia.
Real men read Slashdot articles at -1, bottom up.
And let people edit this precious first post ?
Und lit paeple odet thes pressius frost poust ?
Thair. Hale fiksed.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
If you want Pagerank to rank you up, you have to get links. What would encourage people to link to Britannica?
Well, I guess we have one answer.
This could be very interesting.
It's like Encyclopedia Galactica taking on the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
RTFA.
They said these changes would only be visible online after being vetted by internal or contract editors.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Oh sure, we all rushing to go make edits at Britannica with all their linking and copywrite restrictions: http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights Why work to make them richer? If they go CC or GNU Free Documentation License, it will be impressive and of course, have a better chance of succeeding...but dont see any evidence this is a route they going.
wikipedia is so easy to use, so vast that it is much easier to resort to wikipedia for something than britannica. when we are debating, discussing, or wanting to give information about something to someone in a quick fashion, we link the wikipedia page. in our sites, forums and so on. therefore the pageranks of those wiki pages goes up and up, whereas britannica's sucks tit.
it doesnt matter that wikipedia's content can be contested, objectionable, at times unreliable for some controversial subjects - it gives an easy, neat, formatted, quick glance presentation to convey what you are talking about to the person you are linking it to. moreover, the articles that are created with solid references and common knowledge cant be contested, so there isnt too much difference in linking "Anita Ward" or "French-Indian Wars" wiki pages to someone to give out a broad info, and give them a place to start with. not to mention that stuff that doesnt make into britannica editions because 'editors' would find too controversial or distasteful for their political/financial alignment, can easily be found in wikipedia in all their bare truth.
sorry britannica. you are proprietary technology. this is the 21st century of participation and interactivity. wikipedia is participative, and interactive. you are way behind. its good to see you trying to adopt, but its annoying to see that you people rant about stuff that are better than you in many respects. lighten up, its the century of the people. people are the custodians of information now, not a minority literate elite.
Read radical news here
I've just tried Britanica.com.
There is a pop-up window that prevent you from reading the article every 20 seconds.
To avoid this pop-up they offer free trial registration.
I went to the registration page, three things:
1- The trial is only 7 days long
2- They ask for a CREDIT-CARD NUMBER in order to access to the FREE trial
3- You have to CANCEL registration within the seven days or they CHARGE you AUTOMATICALLY
Now I know why I will avoid Britanica.com
I propose a test between encyclopedias:
Take a bunch of people and have them learn a new topic. Have half the people denied access to wikipedia (but full access to britannica.com) and vice versa with the other half. Give them 1 hour to learn about the topic
Then test them on the topic and see who is better "educated".
Possibly do it double blind so that the people who grade them are denied access to both britannica.com and wikipedia, and do not know what source of knowledge the person had.
I just checked http://www.britannica.com/ and get:
HTTP Status 404 - /
type Status report
message /
description The requested resource (/) is not available.
Apache Tomcat/6.0.14
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
Given the quality of your post, I feel you provide a good example of the level of competence required to call wikipedia good and an excellent insight into why preview is least valued by those who most need it.
Teacher's shouldn't accept wikipedia as a source, for the same reasons they shouldn't accept other Encyclopedias. An encyclopedias entire point is to act as a reference, fine for casual research but only to be used as a starting point in finding academic material.
"editorial reviewed" should be "editorially reviewed".
Full of flash crap and annoying popup that asks you to register! sheesh, haven't they learned anything? Not to mention that in terms of breadth, Britannica seems to lose to Wikipedia. Also the direct linking is inexistent! One nice feature in wikipedia is that you can reach any subject by going to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/subject
i accept that, if they ban all encyclopedia then that can make sense, but that is not the norm IFAIK
Why would anyone care to contribute to a proprietary, for-profit encyclopedia that they probably already had to pay for just to access in the first place? Do they really expect hordes of people to pay for the privilege of editing their articles for free while they rake in all the profit?
There is also a bit of a rant against Google for ranking Wikipedia above Britannica on most search terms.
Well what do they expect? Britannica was awesome back in the day but IMHO they dumbed it down and made each volume a third of the thickness that it used to be. Then Wikipedia appears one day and IMHO it covers more topics than Britannica even though the info in Britannica is supposedly more correct, or at least thats' what they say. At least with, Wikipedia you can edit and fix it and with Britannica you can't at least until now. I think Britannica is making a smart move now and it would be a even smarter move to pull in material from their old editions, back when each volume was as thick as the huge dictionary you find in the centre of the library. They should not promise to peer reviewed in it 20 minutes. Instead submissions should go in a queue and they should have smart dudes checking them one by one. Because so many people will make contributions they're staff will be overfloodded with submissions.
Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.25 Server at www.britannica.com Port 80
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
...is indeed funny, and very true..and very sad. But it is not "funny because it's true". It is funny because it is sad. And it's sad because it's true.
I just went to http://www.britannica.com and got a 404.
Great stuff here. Britannica is really making me want to visit their site over Wikipedia.
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
Starting in High School we were taught never to do research off an encyclopedia. You use it to get a general idea about the topic which will help guide you to more appropriate sources for your research.
Britannica has been putting themselves on the high ground when they really weren't so high up. While Britannnica may have better researched articles, however Wikipedia for the most part does a good job at what encyclopedias are good for. A way to get a basic understanding of the topic so you then can go further in and do some real research.
I'm just waiting for schools be it junior, high or college to assign "wikipedia papers" as assignments. You could do it a variety of ways. I'd give each student a randomly generated article, then have them "grade it." Explain what's wrong with it in content, citations, grammar. Then I'd assign the student's to fix everything that they've ID'd as wrong with the given article. I'd then have students review and grade each others articles. You'd start of with existing known good articles and then you'd eventually have them build up to writing full articles on randomly assigned topics.
The educational value of this isn't about improving wikipedia at all. It's about educating students to ID poorly written/researched work, fix it, and write their own fairly decently researched "papers"/articles. Using wikipedia as a classroom tool though helps in several things. They actually learn through experience that not everything written in wikipedia is holy writ "right," and that other sources have the same sort of flaws. They then become used to improving stuff out of habit.
Long term it does end up improving wikipedia and it becomes more and more difficult to find grammer or factual mistakes.
Und lit paeple odet thes pressius frost poust ?
Thair. Hale fiksed.
How is the weather in Oslo today? ;)
Good luck on outdoing Wikipedia. Wikipedia passed EB in relevance a long time ago. I think that the best outcome would be if the Wikimedia Foundation or Google could buy EB and open source its content. Ditto with the Oxford University Press or at least the Oxford English Dictionary. Too bad that EB is a privately held company. I would love to have EB's content merged in with Wikipedia's even if they had to run banner ads to finance the purchase. I don't really think it would be so bad if Wikipedia ran banner ads to help finance their expansion.
I hope the persons who could join Wikipedia and Britannica have tossed this one around: best idea in this thread -- worth at least three cents. -
damaged by dogma
I'd like to know just how many people they plan to pay full-time to approve/reject all of these edits. How many changes are made to Wikipedia in an HOUR? No way they'd ever be able to keep up. It will quickly change over to the Youtube/Yahoo Answers system... someone flags/reports your work enough, it gets automatically removed and they pretend someone actually modded it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
-1, Didn't Read the Article
The changes won't appear on the site until they have been reviewed by someone paid by Britannica.
They must really be on the ropes. They're into full-on me-tooism, but obviously don't get what makes Wikipedia awesome at all.
-Peter
They may not be paid, but editors of the German "de" Wikipedia do almost exactly the same thing through their use of MediaWiki's "FlaggedRevisions" feature. Not something I'd ever endorse a thriving wiki to do, but something that can and has been done, and something that's being proposed right now on the English wiki.
Twenty minutes to check facts, sources, style and copyright issues, for some editor who happens to be online and might not even know much about the specific field of the article? Or did they outsource the job to Mechanical Turk? Wikipedia does well in not having any time limit for vetting an article, because it doesn't make sense.
My brother in law works for Britannica.
That's really all I have to add.
Have a nice day!
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
holy. crap. I made this joke aloud to someone in the room literally immediately before scrollong to your comment (1 second time lag). Huzzah.
-knewter
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why don't you just Google it? Afraid you will get an inaccurate Wikipedia link?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
(Good morning editors, each of you will be reviewing 14,850 edits in the next 8 hours)
Easy, nobody will actually use their site.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wikipedia does it by democracy, basically.
Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Fnord.
i accept that, if they ban all encyclopedia then that can make sense, but that is not the norm IFAIK
Really? I guess it depends on where you went to school. I wasn't allowed to use encyclopedias as a source in elementary school, much less any school beyond that.
Apparently a bunch of wiki-trolls decided that anyone telling the truth about wikipedia is "trolling." Sad, but true.
Slashdot needs to get rid of the "-1 Troll" function altogether. If it gets modded up, great; if not, modding "troll" for mere disagreement (or merely becuase a particular troll got mod points that day) only hurts the system.
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
Teacher's shouldn't accept wikipedia as a source, for the same reasons they shouldn't accept other Encyclopedias.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Referencing to a non-encyclopedic source *and* Wikipedia is much better than the traditional source alone. Yes, the meatspace/research source is probably more trustworthy/up to date, but a second verification helps not just add to the reliability of a given statement, but has an effect of almost multiplying the reliability.
It's even arguable that referencing two encyclopedias for a statement (providing they support each other) is better than the one 'traditional' source.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Why are you assuming that they want to be like Wikipedia, or are trying to be like it? Maybe they just want to save some money by having users write stuff for them instead. I'd imagine that reviewing is easier than writing. Wikipedia showed that user contributions in an encyclopedia are possible, so...
Clever signature text goes here.
That's been pretty much my experience. It makes perfect sense what the GP said... use it for a general understanding and then get more specifics off it's references and further searching along those veins.
That's never the reason given when a prof/teacher says "Don't use wikipedia" though. It's always "anybody can make a change and when I looked up [X topic in my field that I have researched] I found all kinds of bad information." And of course whenever I interject in there rant and ask why they didn't fix it if they know with such certainty that the articles they read were wrong, they usually blow me off or say the system isn't worth their time.
-pessimistic-rant- Personally, I think they just don't want anything to do with a system that might potentially inhibit the sales of their 200-page-for-$120 text books. -/pessimistic-rant-
Vol~
I think you're spot-on that one of the most useful skills nowadays is the ability to sniff out all of the "impurities" which pollute the ever-increasing quantities of incoming information: trolling, vandalism, astroturfing, conflicts of interests (both commercial and other), crackpots, etc. Not to mention the age-old stuff like blatant fraud wearing new, modern clothes (e.g., phishing).
My oldest child is just getting to an age where trying to teach him about it is possible.
If you've ever read from an encyclopedia you'll note that they are rather limited in their scope and sometimes have little usefulness in what they do say.
With Wikipedia the content grows at a strong pace, albeit sometimes with inaccuracies.
Britannica is a long way off from creating a solid competitive product in today's world of the WWW.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
mod parent up! the links i've found for doing research on wikipedia are invaluable, and during college I impressed my senior thesis advisor by digging up some really cool early 20th century avant-garde journal archives
What Brittanica should do is contribute its most polished articles to Wikipedia (or integrate the content) and then periodically, check on those articles or other "good" ones on Wikipedia and do whatever "fact-checking", copy-editing, and the like that they do already and produce better articles in both encyclopedias and still sell their dead-tree version.
The biggest problem both are facing are the questions of "what should an enyclopedia be" or put, "how broad should a general-purpose encyclopedia be", and "to what audience should it be." For example, with a B-Tree Algorithm; should it be in here, and if so, to what level of detail should we go? For Wikipedia, having the ability to have near limitless time and space, articles can be as indepth as contributors wish, and given the near limitless time and space their encyclopedia can have intesive breadth. Brittanica has a cyclical publishing nature, high quality requirements (e.g. Wikipedia can "get away" with articles in development, incomplete, uncited, etc... for a while, where the prior can not), no easy way to remedy inaccuracies; in other words, very limited time and space.
However, Wikipedia is running into issues where certain moderators are under the impression that they too must "trim the fat" and delete articles who need a little TLC; to get the same respectability of Brittanica. The major problem is they are in two totally different situations. Brittanica is trying to be too much like Wikipedia (which might not be a bad thing) and Wikipedia (at least parts of it) are trying to be a little too much like Brittanica; when their delivery mechanisms, editorial/community structure, and ultimately purpose is completely different.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
I'm having trouble making sense of your question. It parses for me as "Why do you think they want to be like Wikipedia? Other than that they're trying to be like Wikipedia?" Could you re-phrase for me?
Britannica hasn't accepted user submissions in their two hundred and forty year history, until now.
Wikipedia has made old-media encyclopedias obsolete. The current Britannica is 2007, and lists for $1395.00. I guess it lists the President of the United States as George Bush. I wonder if it has an article about the CERN LHC at all. Even if it does it can't have any info about it's brief successful operation or that it's currently broken.
It's 32 volumes, so it might have 10% of the breadth of Wikipedia. Of course I can access Wikipedia on my phone. I guess I could get Britannica online on my phone . . . for sixty bucks a year.
I would hope that there's a more consistent level of accuracy in Britannica, but I wouldn't make a life-or-death decision based on either one. In fact, before I took anything in Britannica to heart, I'd make sure that Wikipedia didn't have a correction.
I think that the handwriting is on the wall. I can't see how Britannica is going to regain the lead by weakly mimicking the clear leader.
-Peter
It's the plethora of sources in the Wikipedia articles that are most valuable. I know the Wikipedia article is a cobbled together opinion that might be worthless and even wrong.
I agree with that, the articles are often suspect but Wikipedia does a great job of putting sources on a topic in one place.
the Wikipedia article probably cites the most relevant and recent papers
Also a very good point for Wikipedia, and against Brittanica, which is outdated as soon as it's published. Anyone want to buy a set of used encyclopedias at the flea market? Thought not.
Google's ranking is appropriate because it reflects the fact that people link to the Wikipedia articles more, probably because those articles really are more useful as a starting point for research.
Also agree 100 per cent. But I don't think that's why most people use Wikipedia.
While you are correct, I think most people reading Wikipedia don't bother to check the sources, or think for themselves.
I believe the problem is that parents and schools do not adequately teach critical thinking skills. It's all about passing tests and getting a good job now. Being able to think critically and make decisions about the reliability of information is a dying skill set. Just look at the legions of Fox News and CNN viewers, or hell, people who get all their information from TV news. Do they look further? Do they look for alternative opinions and news sources to compare? Or do they just believe whatever Nancy Grace and Anderson Cooper tell them?
Did a search on Wikipedia regarding Britannica, the result was a detailed article clearly laid out with no web pollution.
Now on the other hand....
All paper encyclopedias are now out of date, and have been for quite a few years now.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
Teachers shouldn't accept ... ...
An encyclopedia's entire point
You have an excellent career in front of you in the fruit trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe
The Slashdot UI filters based on posts' scores and other modifiers.
Are you sure that it's not just that you're not seeing it because AC posts start at Score = 0 and your settings might be filtering posts like that?
Pick any number of random obscure or technical topics, and compare what you get in Wikipedia and Britannica. The results are so lopsided, it's not even funny.
Speaking as someone who has edited a lot at Wikipedia, I'm not that interested in making changes to Britannica articles. Wikipedia's content is all copylefted and anyone can use it as long as they attach attribution. That means that when I improve a Wikipedia article anyone can take that material and use it how they see fit. If I help Britannica I'm helping Britannica get money, releasing the copyright of my work to Britannica and my work won't be easily reusable by people who see it. If one is a volunteer Wikipedia is a much better alternative. As long as that remains the case, Britannica will not do as well as Wikipedia.
The question I have to ask is why would I edit Britannica? They benefit by charging users for their accounts. Wikipedia is free, as a researcher I am happy to add to it because I get that good feeling that I am helping the greater good.
Nah, they're just pissed that their 70's business model has failed, they can no longer sell you 42 volumes that will cost an arm and a leg, and will take the next 25 years to pay off.
I put Britannica in the same mental pigeon-hole as Tupperware, Avon and Amway. They are all glorified pyramids, selling overpriced junk on the virtue of their "name" and encouraging more people into the network by hosting parties, seminars, training sessions etc., where they sell you "training aids" so you can more effectively sell the overpriced junk they sold you in the first place and offload it to someone else.
Yes, it is. I am, you are, it is. Good job.
No, that's not it. That they now accept user contributions doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to be like Wikipedia. Are you trolling.
Again, you are assuming that they are trying to mimick something, and not just using a specific technique. You are basically asserting that this is the case, and when someone tells you that it isn't necessarily that way, you continue with straw men and red herrings.
Clever signature text goes here.
Yes I did. They are promising to review things within 20 minutes (as I noted in my summary).
read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
The other thing that's handy about Wikipedia is that you don't need a subscription to read the articles.
read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
So Britannica is complaining that Google ranks Wikipedia above them, which is bad (I assume because it's user-driven), so their answer is to make Britannica more Wikipedia-like (eg: user-driven), which is good...right. I've got it now.
Saying that my conclusion isn't necessarily correct does me no good. I always assume this to be the case about my conclusions.
Have you anything further to offer? Have you any cogent argument against my theory? Have you any alternate explanation?
You said that "Wikipedia showed that user contributions in an encyclopedia are possible, so...", so they're doing it. So Britannica saw what Wikipedia was doing, saw it was a good idea, and did the same thing (without, in my opinion, understanding it). This, sir, is the very definition of mimicry.
So you may accuse me of any logical or rhetorical errors you'd like, but you still haven't contributed anything more to the discussion than "nuh-uh."
-Peter
For those unfamiliar with wikipedia see Wikipedia.
For those unfamiliar with Britannica see Britannica.
HTH HAND
When you contribute to wikipedia you do it in an attempt to further enhance human knowledge for all to use.
When you contribute to Britannica it's all about using your contribution to sell and profit. Why would you waste you time with a load of old selfish farts?
I don't generally use "searching the internet" as a way to discover absolute truth. Rather, I use it a a way to get a sense of what information is out there; a quick introduction to a subject; a tutorial overview of something; or pointers to further reading.
Before Wikipedia, this more often than not resulted in me being at some random guy's geocities site. Sometimes these were good, sometimes not. You would apply your mental "is this guy a total crank?" filter, cross-reference a few such sites, and often get a decent view of the subject.
I see Wikipedia as basically a much better version of that. You've forced the 10 people with WW2 geocities sites to all get together and bang out a consensus set of WW2 articles, with citations to where they got their info from. Some articles are still total crap, but I can apply my same mental "was this article written by a total crank?" filter---you can often tell from the style and tone whether the article was written by someone with a chip on their shoulder. From the rest, I can get a decent overview of some version of consensus on the subject and pointers to future reading.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You might be interested in Wikipedia's smaller sister project, Wiktionary.
There you can find the definitions of all kinds of useful words, like disenfranchise and, perhaps, disenchant .
~Idarubicin
Some say this has been going on for years.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Nor me having just done the same for the first time especially if the Britannica article on "Wikipedia" is indicative of Britannica's general level of accuracy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Referencing to a non-encyclopedic source *and* Wikipedia is much better than the traditional source alone. Yes, the meatspace/research source is probably more trustworthy/up to date, but a second verification helps not just add to the reliability of a given statement, but has an effect of almost multiplying the reliability.
Is this meant as a joke, or are you serious? This is complete nonsense. Multiple people saying a thing is true do not in any way at all help to verify that the thing is true. Your statement is the exact inverse of how reliable information-gathering works. You're taking "multiple sources repeating one another" as a synonym for "well-informed people agreeing". One of these things is a relatively good source of reliable information, the other is a group of armchair theorists re-posting each other's blogs. You even conflate "verification" with "source". That's not how verification works.
I'm not sure whether to be more horrified that someone could actually believe what you said, or that someone modded it up.
Teacher's shouldn't accept wikipedia as a source, for the same reasons they shouldn't accept other Encyclopedias. An encyclopedias entire point is to act as a reference, fine for casual research but only to be used as a starting point in finding academic material.
This comes up every time there's an article about Wikipedia, and it's so obviously correct that I wonder why it still hasn't reached the status of being a given. Personally, I advise my students to avoid both the EB and Wikipedia, though for different reasons. They are (quote):
They're both pretty bad. I certainly do refer to Wikipedia articles myself, but the "External sources" section is generally the only part of the article worth looking at.
There are exceptions to the general principle that "encyclopaedias are trash". There are some encyclopaedias that consist primarily or even solely of references to primary sources. Those are good encyclopaedias.
I'm just waiting for schools be it junior, high or college to assign "wikipedia papers" as assignments.
I used to offer that as an assignment option in some of my courses, but had to give up in the last year because of rampant deletionism and imposition of idiosyncratic conventions that one or two admins require all edits in a given subject area to follow. You're absolutely right about the pedagogical merits, but it's just not feasible any more.
I guess they should change the name "Britannica!!!" Encyclopedia name must be more than something that refers to Britannia!!.we are not in Victorian ages anymore!!.those days are dead. At least I don't like to read it while its name is Britannica
I've yet to find a single link to the websites where terrorists supposedly post their videos, on Wikipedia, in any relevant article. Just sayin'.
Property is theft.
Using two or more references (preferably all good quality) will obviously help to remove bias from the equation. Even top quality authors can make mistakes, or have opinion bias though, which is the reasoning behind the idea of multiple references.
As for my point about referencing of two encyclopedias; If they both themselves make a particular statement which references from good quality AND different sources, then they are not simply repeating each other. It would be highly unlikely in such a case that they would both be misinterpreting the info, especially as they are from different sources.
You may say go to the original source in each case, but often A: that's not possible, or B: the encyclopedia makes a simple point/fact that convinces one that it would have been hard for the encyclopedia to translate inaccurately from the original source. Combine this with another encyclopedia (or even better, another completely different original source), and the result is better than one authoritative source alone.
Finally, it would seem to me that Wikipedia's math section is held in very high regard, even now. I'm not going to say it's a good thing to reference only that, but it wouldn't surprise me if in 10-100 years, it becomes so nigh on perfect that going to another source will be a relative waste of time, at least for the more basic, pre-PHD level.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
You realise of course that even though there isn't a formal expert review process at Wikipedia, the project is *loaded* with experts. You can barely move without tripping over a Ph.D. Hence Wikipedia's other name, "Unemployed Ph.D Death Match."
Also explains the wide variety of rules selectively employed to completely reject anything that doesn't meet with a moderator's approval. They're use to academia where everyone protects their own patch of turf and the official truth is more about who's views you're aligned with than the truth.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Mr. Mark Pesce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pesce
This man elaborates on how Wikipedia has come to become a problem for Britannica because Wikipedia users are growing and are coming to having a sense of ownership in Wikipedia and start to maintain/update it themselves. Wikipedia has more URL links than Britannica which speaks tremendously about wikipedia's "social currency" as Mr. Pesce coined it. In fact it was clear that every human has a certain "social currency" value.
I suggest you to listen to his Hyperpeople audio book:
http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/734605/Hyperpeople:-Information-Knowledge-and-Power-in-the-21st-Century
If you prefer to read:
http://www.webearth.org/hyperpeople/hyperpeople-book.pdf
The combination of Google, Wikipedia and Britannica already do give us a good start to what Mr. Pesce calls the "Encyclopedia Humanica".
Google Translate ROCKS!!!! I look at different web links in different languages and have them translate into English regularly. It's not perfect, but it works adequately in my opinion. A good book for bringing these companies to compliment each other's services would be:
CO-OPETITION by Adam Brandenburger and Barry Nalebuff:
http://mayet.som.yale.edu/coopetition/Foreward-to-paperback.html
Co-opetion emphasizes working "complementors." A complementor is the opposite of a competitor. It's someone who makes your products and services more, rather than less, valuable. Not surprisingly, the complementor concept is especially relevant to the builders of the Information Economy. Hardware needs software, and the internet needs high-speed phone lines. No one, alone, can, build the infrastructure for the new economy. It's a whole new system made up of many complementary parts.
Another example of a complimentary service for these three companies would have been
"Copernicus"
which eliminates the redundant links on the different result pages.
Google, Wikipedia, Britannica and Copernicus are all complimentary services sharing the same "information economy" pie. What they do in terms of co-operating with each other and their users will determine their future existence.
THE BOTTOM LINE
---------------
When I want an answer to some question, I go online. I go to the internet and I "google" the keywords. I don't "wikipediate" the keywords. I don't "Britannicanate" the keywords. I don't go to a book source. It takes too much time to flip the pages. In less than 5-10 seconds I have more information than I can handle about whatever topic I am googling.
USUALLY I'm not stupid enough to just look at the first results page of google urls because I know damn well there are people who pay to be the first hits in terms of relevancy. I have found many gems deeply hidden on the 20th and sometimes 50th page for example.
But that's your assumption. You are assuming that they are trying to do the same thing, but they are doing it differently. Whether that is on purpose or because they don't understand, you and I don't know, so your post is pointless speculation. You are likely a Wikipedia fanboy who will defend Wikipedia to the death.
Clever signature text goes here.
This thread is almost a day old now, but hopefully some people will see this...
How does one shut down a large company without letting it fail first? I mean practically. Now that Britannica's business model is kaput, and there are dozens of better reasons to use Wikipedia, that leads Britannica by several orders of magnitude... is it even an option for them to say, "Lets just shut down, sell out assets, and give out the cash to the employees"?
Pretty much: business execs today could never let that happen. They would have to chase every dead end possible until the business completely failed, or it was bought by another company.
So, can a LARGE (non-Mom-N-Pop) business just close?
I have tried using the Britannica site a few times in the past, and I just tried again now. It isn't very good, is it? I mean sure maybe it's all accurate, but on Wikipedia I find what I am looking for within a few minutes, mostly within seconds. Once you get there, the pages are relatively easy to read.
Go on, have a look at Britannica.com... Tell me what you think... What do you think most non-geeks will go back to, Wikipedia or Britannica?
Wait wait! I do have a use for Britannica - the company that is, not the product. They would make fine editors of Wikipedia for selected important articles!
(Assuming of course, they got over their current elitist attitudes).
OK, there is a use for Britannica as well - comparing it's articles against WP would probably provide some useful updates to the WP articles.
Sorry, didn't have anything to say about monetising this process chaps.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Britannica never thought that an open source product like Wikipedia would seriously challenge the credibility of its brand. They were wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica's staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in serious trouble.
It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools & individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and often much more comprehensive.
I dont see britannica as a search option in firefox. And I leave the search box on wikipedia almost all the time
Two can play this game.
You don't know, so your post is pointless speculation. And, in fact, I don't think I have said anything in Wikipedia's defense.
I am a fan of Wikipedia, but I haven't been any kind of "boy" in many years. Wikipedia has serious faults, and I'm not blind to them. But I have found it amazingly useful in both my personal and professional lives. So, yeah, I really like it!
But regardless of how I feel about Wikipedia I think that they're eating Britannica's lunch. I've offered a substantial explanation of why I think this is the case (breadth, depth, timeliness, cost).
I continue to suspect that Britannica is trying to implement part of Wikipedia's (open) secret sauce because they are getting spanked in the market place. You've still said nothing to dissuade me from this viewpoint. As I said before, I need no convincing that I might be wrong, but you've offered no reason for me to reconsider.
-Peter
I'd like to make some changes to the Britannica article on Wikipedia. As I'm not willing to give out my real name and address just to benefit a company I care little about, I'm just going to post my fixes (really more annotations) here:
"For many observers of these controversies[ weasel words ], a troubling difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias lies in the absence of editors and authors who will accept responsibility for the accuracy and quality of their articles[ citation needed ]. These observers[ who? ] point out that identifiable individuals are far easier to hold accountable for mistakes, bias, and bad writing than is a community of anonymous volunteers, but other observers[ weasel ] respond that it is not entirely clear if there is a substantial difference. Regardless of such controversies--perhaps in part because of them[ speculation ]--Wikipedia has become a model of what the collaborative Internet community can and cannot do."
cos in my opinion what counts very much is the number of people it reaches. Somewhat in a different view , the amount of energy it has access to , i think wikipedia is one of the webs number one sites, its all about free information, as was, if i recall correctly the intent of the www in the first place reprezent nigga
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
Unless you are only after an extremely basic summary of a subject area to help inform readers of an area that is relevant but they won't all be studied in I cannot see the point in referencing the encyclopedia.
A great deal of the material on Wikipedia is of good quality, and yes mathematics is one area where this is normally the case. However as long as Wikipedia continues in its current model it cannot be a good source for reputable work. Its policy on anonymous editing means that unless you already know about the subject you cannot tell if someone has intentionally mined the article with falsities, and any subject that is contentious is subject to members of the different 'factions' altering it to their view.
If I needed surgery, my car fixing or tax advice I would never allow a service run by anonymous volunteers to decide for me, even if I might use them to give me some direction before seeking advice from a qualified expert. References in a academic work should be treated in the same manner, anything less means your work is building a weak foundation for those who later wish to build upon it.