[Foundation-l] Closer look at Nature's results: Average article size for Wikipedia: 6.80 KB; Britannica: 2.60 KB. Number of errors per 2KB for Wikipedia: 1; Britannica: 6.5

Thu Dec 15 19:03:18 UTC 2005

On 12/15/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> I think that the "Nature" article was largely sympathetic.  Our best
> response would be to review the articles surveyed to make whatever
> corrections are needed, or even to make corrections that they failed to
> notice as well.

Agreed.

> Once this is done it could be brought to the attention
> of the "Nature" staff and a challenge issued to see how long it takes EB
> to make its corrections. 8-)

But why, why why go into this competition thing? :(
I believe Britannica and Wikipedia are pursuing the same goals, with
different means. Although I find it excellent that we take Britannica
as an example and as a goal, I believe we have much to learn from
them, and they from us. Can't we work hand in hand to achieve that
goal? Competition should be an incentive to get better, for them and
for us, not because we want to be the best, not because of stupid
numbers, but because we are looking to achieve this:

"Le but d'une encyclopédie est de rassembler les connaissances éparses
sur la surface de la terre ; d'en exposer le système général aux
hommes avec qui nous vivons, et de les transmettre aux hommes qui
viendront après nous"
--Denis Diderot

(bad translation)
"the goal of an encyclopaedia is to gather knowledge scattered all
over the Earth's surface; to expose its general system to the men with
whom we live, and to pass it along to those who will come after us "
--Denis Diderot

Tell you what, what I hope is that in 2 years from now, Nature will do
the same study, and find 0 mistake. Neither in Britannica, nor in
Wikipedia.

(a hopeful) Delphine
--
~notafish