Ex-Britannica Editor Reviews Wikipedia

0-9a-f writes "Robert McHenry, one-time Editor in Chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, offers his thoughts on Wikipedia at Tech Central Station. While many Wikipedia zealots might discount his obvious bias outright, his broad argument is difficult to ignore. A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare, but how would they recognise it once they had?"

Shakepsearmonkey.pl

[stecoop]

Robert McHenry asked "how would they recognize it once they had (Shakespeare)"

Simple. For each Shakespeare literature there would be another million monkeys reading and discussing the article. Thus you have a million writing monkeys and you would have maybe a million million reading monkeys; thus, the noise from the million million monkeys during discussion would drive the million monkeys.

foreach $monkeys(keys {%Shakespeare})
{
print "You\'ve got Shakespeare" if %shakespeare{$monkeys} = $It;
}

See the infinite monkey rule isn't good to apply as that rule doesn't facilitate feedback from the system.

My Favourite

[Seft]

I've been using Wikipedia almost exclusively as my encyclypedia for over a year now.

Re:My Favourite

[lukewarmfusion]

"encyclypedia"

This reminds me of Bart's discovery that he was drinking "smilk."

Good luck with your encyclypedia.

Re:Evolve, Sir.

[Janek Kozicki]

FTA [...]

perhaps you meant FTFA?

MMmonkeys

[Quixote]

A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare, but how would they recognise it once they had?

So true! Thats like saying a million monkeys might write a great open-source operating system, but how would they recognise it once they had?

ermm.. wait...

Re:Shakepsearmonkey.pl

[Savage-Rabbit]

For each Shakespeare literature there would be another million monkeys reading and discussing the article.

Hmmm... We can rephrase that, can't we?

For each Slashdot headline there are another million monkeys reading and discussing the article.

Re:Bias?!

[NardofDoom]

The Karl Rove ariticle basically made him out to be a reincarnated Goebbels.

Yeah, Goebbels was more hands on.

Re:Shakepsearmonkey.pl

[lpontiac]

and you would have maybe a million million reading monkeys;

Hmm. I think we need quantum monkeys.

Re:Shakepsearmonkey.pl

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

If we're talking Monkeys, then shouldn't the code be in VB?

How in the hell...

[gosand]

This is perhaps the most compelling point made in the article, to me. Of course, the cynic's read into that statement is that Wikipedia will never get to the truth (see Asymptote [wikipedia.org]).

Now how in the hell am I supposed to trust this definition of Asymptote?

Re:My Favourite

[saigon_from_europe]

I've been using Wikipedia almost exclusively as my encyclypedia for over a year now.

I have mod points, but there is no "+1 Optimistic"...

I'm guilty of that

[selfdiscipline]

That's funny

I am turning in a paper tomorrow that cites the wikipedia as a source. I suppose if I attended a less-crappy university, I might care.

I think that the information I used was accurate enough. It was about voting systems.

Re:Out of date?

[ArsenneLupin]

Revolutions happen, presidents change [wikipedia.org]

If only it were true

Re:My Favourite

[Sivar]

I study computer science at the university level, by the by.

Wow -- That is simply unheard of at Slashdot!

Re:Shakepsearmonkey.pl

[idontgno]

Hmm. I think we need quantum monkeys.

But are they reading, or aren't they? Who knows? Heisenberg and Schroedinger don't, that's for sure.

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, there may be a bad apple here and there, but the stereotypical Wiki author is most definitely NOT a biased, flamebaiting cynic [theonion.com].

Re:approaching truth

[orac2]

Good Lord! A thoughtful, well-reasoned, comment, that accepts the criticism and acknowledges the fundamentally experimental nature of the project, instead of treating the Bazaar analogy like it came down on stone tablets, while in a measured manner making a case for supporting said project?

On Slashdot?

My head just exploded.

Re:Already fixed!

[Enahs]

Oh, shit. That's embarrassing.

Typos happen. *shrug*

You can't tell me a misplaced apostrophe is a typo, though. Look at a QWERTY keyboard, and you'll see how it happened.