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."
Wikipedia isn't interested in truth, only facts.
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 [...]."
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.
according to the article. Wikipedia says 1606.
I daresay the aborigines would reckon the date a bit earlier...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I picture a Britannica HQ populated by a bunch of old farts complaining about the "kids and their damned internets." When they decided to develop an online version, they probably just went with the first developer who could impress them with some cheap Flash and a lot of impressive-sounding jargon. "That guy really knows his internets," was no doubt overheard at the end of his presentation.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If I were the CEO of Britannica, I would be ashamed to have a website full of ads and nag screen
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
They're going to look it up on Wikipedia.
If I were the CEO of Britannica, I would be ashamed to have a website full of ads and nag screen
If you are capable of feeling shame, you'll never be a CEO.
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 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.