[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

Fri Dec 16 00:46:57 UTC 2005

Delphine Ménard wrote:

>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? :(
>
Touché!  I had in mind the ability to correct things quickly, which is 
not there in a paper encyclopedia, but you're right, it does seem 
competitive in retrospect.  My remarks were perhaps insensitive.

>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.
>  
>
Sentiment makes me agree with you, and this noble idea.  I wonder if 
Britannica can even survive.  That's sad for an institution that's been 
around for 250 years.  They were built on the model of a bulky 
multi-volume set of books.  Who's going to buy that if one can find so 
much more information at no cost?  At present Wikipedia is well ahead of 
Britannica in quantity, and almost equal in quality.  Recent events have 
forced us to look at quality, and there is certainly incentive to do 
something about it.  Where does that leave them when the only asset they 
have left is an established name?

If one can depend on Alexa ratings they show that we are at that part of 
the pyramid where the air is thin.  How we managed to get there has 
probably left most of us puzzled.  When you're that big it's hard to 
roll over in bed without crushing the one beside you.  What are the 
ethical implications of being where we are?  Maybe as a group we need to 
address some of these issues in Boston.

Can I start pushing the POV that Wikimania 2007 should be in Africa?

Ec