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."
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
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.
You're absolutely right.
Wikipedia is ranked higher because it is more linked throughout the web. But this is just another example where PageRank really is working: it's returning results that are most useful to the searcher.
For instance for "neutron" on Google, the first link is to Wikipedia. Britannica is nowhere on the first page. If you go directly to Britannica, they do indeed have an article on "neutron". However, it is a "premium topic" and keeps asking me to become a member. So when someone is searching for information about neutrons, what source is more useful: the one that immediately provides some information, with references; or the one that asks you to pay some money (or try the free trial...) in order to get full access, so that you can then figure out whether the information they have is useful or not... ?
The fact is that Wikipedia is more heavily linked because it is a more accessible, therefore more useful, source of information. Even if Britannica's content were superior, this would still be the case. The fact that Wikipedia is more expansive, more timely, and frequently more detailed/referenced than Britannica just makes the choice even clearer.
PageRank works. Wikipedia is overall a more useful source to the average web surfer, and thus deserves a much higher rank.
That's exactly the problem, and one which the Britannica guy doesn't get. I'm only minimally interested in what some expert at Britannica thinks is the right answer, and a bunch of citations back to the print version of their encyclopedia as justification is useless.
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. So what? I can read the cited sources and form my own opinion, an option which Britannica doesn't really offer. They think they are their own authority and that their readers can end their investigation there because of the high quality. Sorry, that's stupid. Real research doesn't work that way. The days of "proof by authority" are rapidly fading. "[Citation needed]" is the way that real science has always worked, and most other subjects. You figure it out for yourself by reviewing what has already been done, and you back up your claims. It isn't perfect, but it is much better than no citations or "because we're Britannica!"
Even if Britannica does pop up in Google's search results I usually don't bother looking, because I know it probably won't tell me anything I don't already know. Meanwhile the Wikipedia article probably cites the most relevant and recent papers, and maybe even has a link to a PDF of it or another relevant website. I can dig deeper. The citations are weak in Britannica.
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.
As a follow-uy I finally did find a Britannica entry on Cherenkov Radiation, featuring all of a paragraph of info and no pictures (had to use Google, not Britannica's own search engine, to find it). Now, compare that to the Wikipedia entry. And they WONDER why Wikipedia's articles rank higher?!?!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I also looked it up on the Britannica website but it told me it was premium content and that I needed to sign up to view it (or at least not get annoying popups all the time).
Which is another reason (IMO)) why Wikipedia should appear higher than Britannica.
Erm, but isn't the fact that Wikipedia actually is a pretty good source for very many things people are searching for on Google important? That's the difference between it and other linkfarms - I (as I'm sure is the case with many others) am very frequently happy to follow a link to Wikipedia, where I find the information I'm looking for. The same isn't true for other, lazier sites.
And isn't Google's aim to get you to the information you're looking for?
Considering that Wikipedia's own search engine sucks (especially when I am unable to spell unfamiliar terms), yes. I find the Google/Wikipedia combo to be invaluable in finding what I am seeking to learn.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
I'd love to see Google treat wikipedia like they treat everyone else. Won't happen, but it would mean Google would have more meaningful search results.
Some analysts have claimed that Google would have much less meaningful results if Wikipedia were treated like everyone else:
Then Google had a brainwave. Realizing that few searchers explore beyond the top three results, it decided to give a powerful boost to Wikipedia. Nevermind the 6 billion junk pages - Google need only ensure users clicked on the two million Wikipedia entries. As a consequence, Wikipedia entries rose to the top of the rankings. During 2006, Wikipedia entries eclipsed all others, and typically feature in the top three SERPs, or the top search result.
I don't know enough about Google's search to judge, but it seems likely that Google would want to favor Wikipedia entries to increase the relevance of search results, in the face of so many challenges from bots, junk pages, cybersquatters, link farms, etc.
I personally like seeing Wikipedia at the top of Google's search because I think Wikipedia helps to break the hegemony of academia on the dissemination of knowledge. Even with all its flaws, Wikipedia is more democratic than any other encyclopedia and has changed the way information is shared around the world.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Comment removed based on user account deletion