[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia more popular than Britannica!

Fri Aug 1 20:03:39 UTC 2003

It is worth mentioning that in terms of academic credibility, Encarta is not 
very highly regarded. In fact I have heard it described as a triumph of 
image over substance. But it is great to see wiki doing so well. We have 
/so/ many quality articles and also other than the 32K limit, we have 
greater scope to go into things in more detail.

I think wiki does need as it develops to be able to have some 'final' 
articles that, having reached a clear standard of accuracy, readability etc 
can he removed from the editing process. The downside of constant editing is 
that some articles that reach a high standard then can lose that as those 
who produced the standard leave and someone comes on and rewrites it to a 
lower standard. Wiki's open edit policy is its major plus, as it allows us 
to evolve and update, but its downside is reliability. Can I be sure if at 
8.17pm I read an article /everything/ in it is factual or could I have the 
bad luck to read it just after some user either through not knowing what 
they were doing or deliberately, mucked it up and added in false 
information? For example, Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel is 
disputed. That is stated on wiki (after a battle!). But what if a reader at 
8.17 reads a version that says in a POV edit it is an 'undisputed' capital. 
Or someone doing an essay on JFK reads an edit at 8.17 that says he was the 
33rd not the 35th president?

For all their downsides, the 'centainty of standard' is the one major plus 
that Brittanica, World Book, Encarta has. When you read an article you are 
getting a definitive version, not that moment's edit. At some stage wiki is 
going to face a credibility barrier where people ask 'but can I be sure that 
King Edward VI of England actually died on that day, or is it a bad edit? 
How can I be sure W.T. Cosgrave said that? How and when we deal with the 
'certainty of standard' issue will mark the moment we go from being a good 
secondary source that may give a fascinating insight but which just to be 
sure you might want to cross check, just in case, to a /guaranteed/ reliable 
primary source.

Please don't think I am knocking wiki. It is a superb encyclopædia that I am 
proud to associate with. But it still is in its relative infancy. However 
just because we get more hits than other encyclopædias does not mean we are 
as generally reliable as they are. (I came across an article on [[John 
Redmond]] some time ago that before rewriting would have completely screwed 
up any reader's understanding of the early 20th century Irish leader.) As we 
grow and become more famous, people's expectations of our reliability and 
our 'certainty of standard' will grow and we are going to need to find a 
mechanism to ensure that, while not losing wiki's mass participation ethos.

JT
>
>If only Wikimedia could buy out EB........cheap......Imagine!!
>Ec
>
>Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>>Toby-
>>
>>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, this is pretty interesting.  According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is
>>>>now more popular than Britannica.
>>>>
>>>We should probably keep in mind that Britannica is also available in 
>>>print.
>>>In fact, that's the brand's traditional medium.
>>>
>>
>>Encarta has very much harmed Britannica's print sales. Britannica counted  
>>on their brand name and image, but even many of their customers did not  
>>see why they would have to pay thousands of dollars for a paper  
>>encyclopedia when they could get a decent encyclopedia, plus lots of  
>>multimedia stuff, maps etc. for 100 bucks or less, and the whole thing  
>>would fit neatly into their back pocket.
>>
>>Swiss investor Jacob Safra bought Britannica in 1996 (it's still based in  
>>Chicago), and the sales staff for the paper version was fired shortly  
>>thereafter. Since then the focus has been almost exclusively on the  
>>Internet and CD-ROM version, which was massively reduced in price and is  
>>now dirt cheap. For some time they even had the full text online --  
>>remember, those were the dot com days.
>>
>>Things are looking pretty grim for Britannica. Their Java-based software  
>>is a piece of crap, and Encarta has much better marketing. They still have 
>>  their original content bonus, but even in terms of content they have  
>>massive weaknesses in some areas (for example, compare their article on  
>>circumcision with ours). I think the Britannica brand will live on, but in 
>>  terms of competition we should be more worried about Encarta (and vice  
>>versa).
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Erik
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail