[Wikipedia-l] comparison between Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia (German)

Thu Dec 15 12:22:42 UTC 2005

Here an english version of the story:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm

JoaoMiranda

On 12/15/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> http://www.golem.de/0512/42221.html
>
> well ... this is why page creation by anonymous users is not so bad ...
>
> And why it is impossible that Encyclopedia britannica needs to proof and
> reproof each single word it writes
>
> http://www.golem.de/0512/42221.html
>
> "both" encyclopeadias - this means even that one that according to our
> infos needs to proof every single word - has the same amout of critical
> errors in the same articles only in different places ... - hmmmmm .....
>
> considering that Encyclopedia Britannica is 237 years old and Wikipedia
> only 5 .... hmmmmm ....
>
> (sorry I don't have time to translate this article - maybe there's an
> English one around as well???)
>
> Well I suppose it is time to go "back to ordinary" functioning of
> Wikipedia (anonymous users can create articles - this is even easier to
> check to my opinion - just switch off all registered users and have
> special regard to anonymous page creations).
>
> Ciao, Sabine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>