Slashdot Log In
Britannica and Free Content
Posted by
michael
on Thu Jul 26, 2001 03:10 AM
from the hope-this-link-doesn't-crush-kuro5hin.org dept.
from the hope-this-link-doesn't-crush-kuro5hin.org dept.
jwales writes: "Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief of the Nupedia and Wikipedia sister projects, has written a fabulous response on k5 to Britannica's decision to start charging fees for access. It's all about freedom (in the sense of free speech), but there are implications for freedom (in the sense of free beer)."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Re:Dot coms getting real (Score:3)
I've proposed way back when Napster first started that the record companies ought to release music tracks as MP3 but recorded at some very low bit rate, like 56k or the like. Enough that you aren't missing the music, but it's not good enough quality to sit around and listen to all day. Then release them into the 'wild'.
Those that would have never bought the music track will still mooch these, but they're not getting a good quality track, and thus will have no incitive to share again.
Those that never heard of that CD have a way to try out the music and see if they like; if they like, they buy the CD. If not, no other money is lost. Again, the quality of the free track makes it worthless from a 'sharing' standpoint.
Those that probably would have bought the CD (for example, one that follows a specific band) have a way to listen to try before they buy, and that includes all the an album, not just the one or two songs that are radio-featured or at those listening kiosks in the record store. (Eg, I know a lot of people would have avoided DMB's "In These Crowded Streets", knowing the other 8 or so tracks outside of the two for radio play).
Additionally, the music companies could then combine this with an online music program such that one can buy those tracks at a reasonable cost (.25 to .50 a track) at a very high bitrate (196k).
Unfortunately for us, the record companies first played ostrich, then denial, then litigation, in regards to online music. Very much like a Mr. Gates regarding the internet in his book "The Road Ahead".
Re:Encyclopaedic (Score:3)
Errr, come on! Most reference works start out as comprehensive. Not perfect, but comprehensive. Let's see, the first "Complete works of Shakespeare", was, I bet pretty comprehensive. Maybe an obscure sonnet was missing, added in edition 4. But, no one in the real world is publishing something called "The works of Shakespeare" with 4 plays in and a preface saying that with so many members of the public contributing other works, they hope to have at least 12 plays by edition 2!
The value of reference works is in their comprehensiveness. Who wants a guide to the Java class libraries that just leaves out 400 assorted methods because no-one got round to writing the entries for them? Do you think people would still say it was a useful book? If you were teaching chemistry, would you advice students to pay for a full periodic table of elements, or encourage them to use a free one that still have a few elements missing, but was copyright free!
I currently work for a medical journal (www.bmj.com). I can attest the the value and importance of running expert reviews, medical specialist editors, technical editors, copy editors and the rest of it. You don't get that for free.
Encyclopaedic (Score:4)
So, there are lots of arguments about why it is possible for people to create a free encyc. but the proof of the pudding is, let's face it, in the eating.
So far, there is simply no evidence (regardless of what predictions might be plausible) that these kind of free info repositories work.
The Internet itself (+google) is the closest thing to a free 'as in beer' encyclopaedia.
Low quality EB editing (Score:2)
First, look up the Macropedia article "number games" and go to the heading "logical paradoxes" (under problems of logical inference). There you'll find an appallingly false statement, namely the claim that the sentence "All statements made by Cretans are false", if uttered by a Cretan, leads to a self-contradiction. In truth, there is no contradiction there, as anyone who has studied elementary logic and negation of quantified statements (deMorgan's laws) knows.
Well, so I thought that should be pointed out, and I wrote a letter to the author of that article, a retired professor in New York. I learned that he had since deceased; I then sent the letter to the editor of the EB. The editor wrote back that he would study the issue. Several months later, I received a reply: his "sources" disagreed with my assessment and argued that the text should remain unchanged!
I have since lost interest in helping them correct the numerous inaccuracies in their mathematical articles.
--
nupedia replacing Britannica - sure.... (Score:2)
NOTHING!
Yet, if you look at the list of recent articles, at least I know it's got Snobol 4 covered.
Enough with the institutional amnesia! (Score:2)
Encyclopedia Britannica was actually one of the first major general purpose information sites on the web, and most assuredly charged for access.
(I know this because they had a free access program that used unique email addresses to limit repeat signups--but since I had a static DNS that redirected *all* usernames to my address, I could repeatedly sign up for free weeks of service.)
Find your own significance in this.
--Dan
www.doxpara.com
Re:Encyclopedia, school, etc... (Score:2)
TROLL ALERT (Score:2)
Re:way to go (Score:3)
I'm kind of pleased at beating the slashdot effect this time. :-)
--
There is no K5 [kuro5hin.org] cabal.
Re:Controversial Issues (Score:2)
IMHO, that is the only approach that will work. Collaborative ratings (not like what Slashdot uses, but where there is a well-defined link between the identity/reputation of the reviewer and the rated material) along with the viewer choosing who they trust (also unlike Slashdot), can result in the subjectively good stuff floating to the top and everyone being happy with it.
---
Re:Quality Control (Score:3)
Do we need an open source edition? Yes. Given the DMCA, I'm not willing to trust any important work to solely being available in proprietary form. The CRC math handbook isn't available anymore because of copyright issues. (Well, this may have changed again. This was a few years ago.) And people were being told that they couldn't use the table of sines in building interpolation routines. I'm sure that a decent lawyer, a few years, and a bunch of cash could have gotten around that, but the people being challenged didn't have those resources.
Yes, an open source version is needed. Commercial entities can't be trusted with exclusive control of anything. (Actually, I don't think that anyone can, but we are arguing about Open Source here.) History shows that they will press the exclusive control of one resource into associated areas, in a kind of embrace and devour strategy. (No, Microsoft didn't create that strategy. They merely articulated it.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
Also, there is nothing stopping you donating some time / money to reach the goal you require. The final product will be a Free encyclopedia that meats your requirement and doesn't cost, by then, unecessary amounts.
Of course, you're free to continue purchasing closed vartiants but I think that now we have the internet, this isn't necessary on 'quality' grounds if approached responsibly. Free Software and Free Music don't appear to lack quality, perhaps they lack support from some people's view (not mine) but that's not really an issue for books.
The same applies for software and music IMO. I already use Free variants of those in ever increasing amounts and have no plans to stop.
Of course, I really care little for the "How will Britanica make money if we make a free variant". Would you like Cars banned just so Blacksmiths can continue to make horse shoes and protect their market?
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
"meats". I can't believe I did that.
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
You only see what is around you. Look futher.
And also not that those "kids" will one day have your job and be much better at it. Trends. Its all about trends. Where do you see them stopping?
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft already put Brittanica out of busines (Score:2)
I wish I could mod this up - Britannica does stand for quality - my parents scraped enough together to get me two different sets of Britannica (one an older set for everyday reference, the other a current set for occasional reference, as well as each yearbook every year up until a few years ago) when I was younger. The quality of that encyclodpedia, compared to cheesy things like Comptons, or World Book (I think that is right) - uncomparable. Brittanica ruled.
I hope they stay in business - someday I would like to purchase a quality bound encyclopedia for my library - and I would like it to be Brittanica.
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:Microsoft already put Brittanica out of busines (Score:2)
I personally love books, and I really try to seek out older books (one of my favorites is a Coynes School text book from the 30's - detailing the latest in TV systems - including Nipkow disk scanning techniques) - but have yet to find anything much over 100 years old that strikes my interest (what I mean is I have found many 100-150 year old books - but none were on subjects that I fancy). Being able to find such an edition of an encyclopedia would make my day (I think the oldest book I have is an algebra primer from the late 1800's) - provided it didn't break the bank.
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
Where is the quality control in linux kernel development, in apache web server development, in the development of gcc?
Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow.
Re:Encyclopaedic (Score:2)
Re: Ice T (Score:2)
Errrr, come on - this is pure FUD. At least try the search [britannica.com] before you post, and you'll find articles on
The last of which mentiones Ice T in the second paragraph...
Oh, and it gives you two external guides (The Rough Guide [britannica.com] is my favourite) with history and discography.
You are not going to promote Open Source / Open Documents / Community Efforts by being factually incorrect.
Re:Encyclopaedic (Score:4)
And what exactly are you basing that observation on? I have a facimille of the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica and, while some of the articles are a bit shorter that we would expect in a modern volume (famously the complete entry for Woman runs: "the female of man. See Homo.") but it is comprehensive with few, if any, obvious omissions.
Similarly, the French L'Encyclopédie was, with its original 28 and first edition 35 volumes in folio size, a remarkably comprehensive work.
Indeed, I would argue that (commercial) encyclopaedias have a history of being very comprehensive from the first edition onwards. In this spirit, none of the free versions are anywhere close, not even beta.
The point of an encyclopaedia is, indeed, to be comprehensive and also authoritative. I had a look at the "best of Wikipedia" [wikipedia.com] pages, and while the writing was sometimes engaging, on these two counts the articles simply did not measure up.
As an example, look at the article on Calendar [wikipedia.com]. On the first count, that of being comprehansive, it fails obviously by missing half of the articles to specific calendars it mentions at the bottom. (This may change over time.)
On the second count, that of being authoritative, the Encyclopædia Britannica [britannica.com] (subscription required, yadayada) runs to 17 double column pages in my printed edition. It mentions over 15 specific calendars, as opposed to the 6 of Wiki (3 of which has no content).
And - I almost forgot! - the Wiki page is factually incorrect. A calendar does not measure time, a clock does. The printed Britannica definition "a calendar is a means of grouping days in ways convenient for regulating life and religious observances and for historical and scientific purposes" is much better.
For the computer programmers out there, think of the calendar as the thing that translates time (time_t or whatever; an event in the Universe) into a date; a date having a legal or social meaning. In this context it is interesting that the calendar can change with eight to ten weeks' notice [dtic.mil].
So I guess I'm not impressed yet. Still, it is early days and the project may grow.
Bravo! (Score:4)
First.
The freelibre philosophy, which works very well for software, is not universally appropriate.
Second.
It does not follow that if someone/thing/company is non-freelibre, or non-freegratis that they are automatically evil/bad. Some people just prefer to be paid for their work/knowledge directly. People are different. Love the diversity. See rule the first.
Third.
Empowerment is not Entitlement. Just because you are able to, does not mean it is right or clever that you should. Exercising your freedom to will in many cases take away someone elses freedom from. See rule the second.
Fourth.
Freedom from is, in many cultures, more important than Freedom to. It is this fundamental difference in thinking that seperates Microsoft and the GNU/Linux community, Adobe and the Russians, the RIAA and Napster and so on and so on. See rules the first, second and third.
If half of the time spent on this non-sensical freelibre jihad was spent actually working on the product, whatever it is, all this ra-ra-ra we-are-great-you're-non-free-you-suck would be redundant.
and now, back to the coffee.
Filling in holes (Score:2)
Re:The One Thing I Want You To Know! (Score:2)
You misunderstand me.
I'll readily concede several points in your article, because they are simply not relevant to the issue at hand. Is Britannica significantly more comprehensive than Nupedia? Yes!
But I dispute the scholarliness, clarity, and authority of Britannica in many cases, and the reason for the serious deficiencies in Britannica is precisely that they do not have a proper blind peer review process. Errors creep in, and they don't have the best mechanisms for keeping them out.
Is Britannica the best encyclopedia in existence? By a long shot. Can it be improved upon immeasurably? Certainly.
What we're about is having an open process, run by volunteers. None-the-less, my primary point is this. Anyone who criticizes Nupedia by using the notion "How can I trust what some random jerk on the web says" should investigate our review process, and Britannica's review process. What you'll find is that the quality of Nupedia is unsurpassed.
The downside, for Nupedia, has been speed of production. But these things take time. And the important thing is that since this is all *free* (libre, GNU FDL), it will never go away and never die so long as one person cares to continue the work.
The One Thing I Want You To Know! (Score:3)
Nupedia has rigorous peer review! (Score:5)
Asking who is going to pay these editors and quality controllers is like asking who is going to pay the maintainers of free software. If GNU/Linux and all the free BSD variants didn't exist, you'd be justified in your skepticism.
But we already know this will work.
What about wikipedia [wikipedia.com]? Well, here you have to judge for yourself. The review process is open and eternally ongoing. Being less rigorous, the quality of the final product is lower than Nupedia. But if you look through it, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how good it really is.
Hooray! (Score:4)
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
So where's the quality control in these 'open' encyclopaedias?
You either didn't read the article, or you're experienced enough in the field of journals to see the flaw in the article's argument.
"many Wikipedia articles so far are of surprisingly high quality."
The article misses the point. "Surprisingly high quality" is what wins the Booker prize for fiction. In a reference work, you don't need a few great pieces, you need to avoid any number of bad ones. It's not the greatness that makes a useful encyclopedia, it's the avoidance of error.
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
do we really need an "open source" enclopedia?
Yes. Definitely so.
An open source encyclopedia has problems, certainly. It might not even qualify for the strict use of the term "encyclopedia", but I'd still hate to lose them.
Here's a couple of "open source data repositories". See what you think:
Hand filtering of old Usenet that one guy thought was "useful". Idiosyncratic, unauthorative, and terribly useful. It's also quite nostalgic for the "good old days" of Usenet; names like John De Armond and Garry Coffman
What started out as a very pure attempt at an "open source encyclopedia", but now has some serious issues over moderation and editorial control. Now it seems to be de-evolving into a chatroom
Microsoft already put Brittanica out of business (Score:3)
A few years later, the Brittanica people went to see Bill Gates about a possible buyout. He told them they now had negative value, because their big outside sales force that sold print encyclopedias door to door was a liability, not an asset. That seems to have been a valid assesment.
Since then, Brittanica has been looking for a revenue model. They tried bulk licensing for universities (Stanford used to have a site license), a free online service, and now a pay online service. Nothing worked. Brittanica has since laid off most of their staff.
Brittanica's big problem was price. The print version lists at $1250. Encarta lists at $30. Brittanica faced the classic problem of a high-margin company faced with low-margin, high-volume competition. Very few companies make that transition successfully.
Re:Well that's just ridiculous.... (Score:5)
Don't be ridiculous. I'm sure that thousands of hours of research and editing go into an encyclopedia such as Britannica. The authors and editors make this effort so you don't have to. What you are paying for is convenience and accuracy.
If you want to take the time to go research everything yourself and not pay Britannica, that's fine. But if you want to find information on a ton of topics that you can count on to be well organized and accurate, go to an established encyclopedia such as Britannica.
An encyclopedia isn't a scientific journal where you go to find newly discovered facts. It's a research tool.
Re:Well that's just ridiculous.... (Score:2)
An encyclopaedia is just like any other (nonfiction) book, except that it covers more topics. You pay for a book on astronomy. Or a book on biochemistry. Or on Greek history. Etc. With an encyclopedia, you get all those books in one.
The encyclopaedia Brittanica is truly scholarly. I once picked several topics at random, looked them up in other highly-regarded specialist sources, then looked them up in the Brittanica. (It was a project that took a few weeks.) The Brittancia was superb, presenting the knowledge clearly, concisely, and with great insights. Sometimes the Britannica was even more insightful than the specialist sources. And both the breadth and depth of coverage were excellent.
The Britannica articles are not written by just anybody. The Britannica editors choose the articles' authors from among the leading researchers in their respective fields. So the erudite qualtiy of the articles is entirely expected.
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
Re:Encyclopaedic (Score:2)
Re:Encyclopaedic (Score:2)
Alternatively, go check the now-out-of-copyright public domain Britannica, or look at version 1 of the Jargon File, or those early cddb databases, and do a quick count of the errors you can spot immediately.
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
Re: Ice T (Score:2)
Re:Encyclopaedic (Score:3)
Re:Encyclopaedic (Score:3)
Quality Control (Score:3)
And who's going to pay these editors and quality controllers?
Sorry, I think I'll stick with established sources of information myself.
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
Re:Well that's just ridiculous.... (Score:2)
"Hi Doc, I've got sore arm."
"You've got hyperatropeemia!"
"What's that?"
"I don't know, I just made it up!"
Re:Quality Control (Score:2)
Re:It's all about freedom ... (Score:2)
Your argument reeks of the kind of relativism people use to argue that China is actually a great place. These are the people who don't like freedom at all because they hope to be members of the Nomenklatura.
Open Source Info and Controversial Subjects (Score:3)
In the town where I went to High School, there was an English Edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. It was completely fascinating to read, often at complete variance with the western version of the same information. Although it was often the only source of detailed regional information like the politics and history of Estonia in the Middle Ages.
In a similar vein, I can see Microsoft publicists contributing their take on the History of the Open Source movement. Obviously, there could be problems. You could have the History of Microsoft as well. Should MS be trusted or distrusted here as well?
It comes down to what world view do you want to promote? and if it is open source who do you let in to write the articles? I can see the controversy in the writing of articles covering the history of the American Elections of 2000. The variety of Vested interests would have a blood bath over the details.
Never mind those hot button issues near and dear to the open source community. It is one thing when you are dealing with code that implements widget X. You can see if it works or not. But when you get into areas outside of technology, it is not so simple.
The slippery slope. (Score:2)
Then, in order to "keep costs for the customer low", advertisements will be reintroduced.
Later, in an effort to close a new digital devide, the "Internet Tax" will start distributing funds to large mega-corps so that they are able to provide free content for "the poor".
Of Price and Credibility (Score:2)
But it all comes down to a little maxim that mothers tell their teenage daughters all over the world: Give your stuff away and no one will take you seriously. [ridiculopathy.com]
Contrary to what we had previously believed, it seems that sales of T-shirts [ridiculopathy.com] cannot sustain a staff of 100+ at full salary and benefits.
Sure, Brittanica and Salon have only gone fee-based or semi-fee-based because otherwise they will probably go under. And, sure, they will both probably fail in this venture and go under anyway. But that isn't to say that it's a bad idea.
What will failure mean for Open Content ? (Score:2)
Since the goals of the Nu/Wiki-pedia project are to create comprehensive encyclopediae,and the article's exponential projections suggestion this will be should be attainable in a few years, I wonder what the Open Content world will have to say if at such a time these encyclopedias are something less then the comprehensive and authoritative resources that Brittanica is. Because there are SO many reasons why Open Content encyclopedias might fail:
- There are objective standards by which to judge a piece of code : for instance, whether it works or not, or whether it is secure. There are no objective standards by which to judge a historical essay. How are you going to get a collaborative process to generate consensus on a document on, say, "West Bank Settlements/Colonies" ? Sure, you could fall back on the possibility of having human editors as Nupedia does, but this nullifies much of the collaborative strategy. And with exponential growth, you need an exponentially large number of editors. Will these editors rewrite the articles to make them 'correct' or 'consistent' ? If so, then you basically have an old-style encyclopedia at heart. And if so, who will pay them ? How will they be credentialed ?
- When I pick up the Brittanica I know that experts have written the articles, and I trust their facts. I know there has been rigorous fact-checking and editing, and this is key to Brittanica's authority. What's the nupedia equivalent ? Am I going to trust an article I essentially pick up off the web ? Does anyone else trust articles they pick up off the web so completely ? Do
/.'ers trust political "facts" posted on Usenet, on web-sites, or even here ? I know the Web has taught me nothing if not a great deal of skepticism.
- The probability that some number of editors are going to be able to maintain such a large body of work submitted essentially anonymously by so many people with such varying viewpoints seems improbable, to say the least. Sure, they say, you can always back out changes created by vandals, but sit back and consider the logistics: who's going to back out changes made over hundreds of thousands of articles by tens of thousands of submitters ? Who's going to monitor them ? Who's going to decide what constituted vandalism ? Who's going to check the facts ?
In short, while the idea is intriguing I highly doubt that this project is as plausible a project as any given Open-Source project. The latter has a finite number of contributors, working towards largely objective standards. Open Content encyclopedias do not. And if the latter fails to supercede paid-content encyclopedias, I wonder whether the "Open" community will be brave enough to face that fact fairly.Re:Quality Control (Score:3)
I've had plenty of students who would claim that their papers are of surprisingly high quality. "My roomate thought so. And he's a senior!"
Um, yeah. Whatever.
Bottom-line: the "open source" encyclopedias are noble ideas, but they'll never be accepted mainstream. They'll never be institutionalized the way that Britannica has and will continue to be.
And -- I don't see anyone writing about this -- bear in mind (just naming a few names off the top of my head) that Buckminster Fuller and Aaron Copland (among many, many others) have written and contributed articles to Britannica. This is part of what Britannica such an interesting, ongoing historical document. And this is part of what has "institutionalized" Britannica.
The question we should be asking -- and one, again, that I see no one concerned about -- is this: do we really need an "open source" enclopedia?
We might. I'm not sure. But then: why? Why do we need it? Do we need it because Britannica lacks quality content? Or do we need it because Britannica is charging five bucks a month and a couple people think: "Hmmmm. Monthly charge bad. Must start from scratch."
Dot coms getting real (Score:3)
The issue that will hold people back is just the bother of registering and paying, when it's easier just to go back to Google and see if you can find it in an unrestricted site. (Microsoft Passport to the rescue? *shudder*)
Pointless aggressivity? (Score:4)
Well, I could have posted this countless times before; this basically applies to most discussions about the respective strengths/weaknesses of open source (free) vs closed.
Sanger's article is well written and makes a number of very good points but I couldn't shake an unnerving feeling:
Why does he claim that he will put Britannica out of business?
And more generally, I keep reading posts on
My understanding is that closed and open source are very different "methods of development" that yield very different products addressing very different needs. I am not a technologist (actually I'm more of a business guy) but from my experience, I think I can quickly sum up the plusses and minuses of each "method of development"
Open source plusses
- robust
- reliable
- standard and adaptative
- constantly improving
Open source minusses
- designed for coders
- no respect of deadlines
- never completed
Closed source plusses
- designed for users
- meets deadlines
Closed source minusses
- unrelialable
- hard to maintain / upgrade
Of course, these are generalities and could (will) not apply to any specific situation. I could also add a few plusses or minusses to each method but you get the idea.
I think that each method addresses a different segment of the market and I would not be surprised if in 10 years, both worlds coexist peacefully. Many people in the open source field are starting to realize that. A very interesting discussion about "Why Linux will never make it to the mass-market?" (or something along these lines) took place on
Back to Nupedia and Wikipedia, Sanger makes a pretty convincing description of what these projects could become when (if) they reach critical mass, but I think he misses a point about what it takes to create a good encyclopedia.
Writing a good encyclopedia is not only about getting the largest number of the best writers submitting the largest number of the best articles. It is also about coherence, completeness and absolute accuracy.
Benevolent writers will offer articles on their pet subjects, but how do you find a writer for a specific article if nobody is voluntary? All articles will probably improve in quality over time, but at a given time won't lots of articles still be bug-ridden?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these projects are dommed or will never meet a significant success. I do think, though, that Nupedia and Wikipedia will eventually be dramatically different from Britannica and will fill dramatically different needs.
Adopting this perspective, I think that open source advocates should commit less resources in religious wars and more in thinking about what needs they want to address and which market they are targetting.
I will fight for the right to be right