Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Education

Wikipedia Corrects Encyclopedia Britannica 381

Posted by kdawson
from the just-plain-wrong dept.
javipas writes "Despite all the controversy about Wikipedia's work model, no one can argue the potential of a project that has so effectively demonstrated the usefulness of the 'wisdom of crowds' concept. And that wisdom has detected a large number of mistakes in one of the most revered founts of human knowledge, the Encyclopedias Britannica. Among the wrong information collected on this page are the name at birth of Bill Clinton and the definition of the NP problems in mathematics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikipedia Corrects Encyclopedia Britannica

Comments Filter:
  • Score +5 (Troll) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23, 2007 @10:37PM (#19965257)
    Too bad most of the administrators think they know more than you, simply because they read an article on the subject. The others are all to happy to demonstrate the Wikipedia caste system to you.
    • Re:Score +5 (Troll) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23, 2007 @11:39PM (#19965667)
      Concise but rich. You've really summarized the problem of Wikipedia, and all peer-dictated fora, quite elegantly.
    • by greenrd (47933) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @06:28AM (#19967525) Homepage

      Too bad most of the administrators think they know more than you, simply because they read an article on the subject. The others are all to happy to demonstrate the Wikipedia caste system to you.

      [citation needed [wikipedia.org]]

      • by sqldr (838964) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @07:54AM (#19968265)
        There are times when I feel the urge to write "citation needed" on every single article on conservapedia, eg. on the origins of kangaroos:

        "After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia." [citation needed]

        I mean, what the fuck?

        "There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart, or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters." [citation really fucking needed]

        Kangaroos crossing thousands of miles of ocean on rafts.. I'm not sure these guys are strictly adhering to their anti-pot-smoking policy.
      • by IwantToKeepAnon (411424) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @08:50AM (#19968881) Homepage

        [citation needed]



        [citation needed] [xkcd.com]
    • by jbarr (2233) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @10:06AM (#19969887) Homepage
      When my friends and I were younger, we were Trivial Pursuit fanatics, and one game, I was asked a science question (don't remember the exact question) but the answer listed was incorrect. I was so pissed that I actually wrote the manufacturers complaining, and I received a letter from them explaining that in some cases, incorrect answers and occasional misspellings were intentionally included to help combat copyright infringements. Should a competitor use the same questions and intentionally bogus answers, then proving infringement was easier.

      OK, I understand that the Encyclopedia Britannica is meant to be an authoritative source, but is it possible that some inconsistencies or errors were introduced in a similar manner?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TheoMurpse (729043)

        OK, I understand that the Encyclopedia Britannica is meant to be an authoritative source, but is it possible that some inconsistencies or errors were introduced in a similar manner?

        No, and I'll explain why I think so.

        The important difference between Trivial Pursuit and an encyclopedia here is that Trivial Pursuit's answers are just a short phrase or small set of words. You cannot copyright the answer (because facts are not copyrightable), but you can copy the set of questions and answers because aggregating

  • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday July 23, 2007 @10:38PM (#19965269) Homepage Journal
    Even if it were error free, Britanicca would still be useless - it does not enough content.

    I mean, where's the articles on Fanboy [wikipedia.org]? Or the List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. [wikipedia.org] (and for that matter, detailed summaries [wikipedia.org] of individual episodes [wikipedia.org]) Or for that matter, where's the article on the Slashdot effect [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      correction:

      it does not have enough content.

      talk: I hate wikipedia. It's at best a well spoken gentleman in a pub. It sounds right but I can't be sure.

      (captcha: deserves)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @12:35AM (#19965953)
      Even if it were error free, Britanicca would still be useless - it does not enough content.

      I mean, where's the articles on Fanboy? Or the List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. (and for that matter, detailed summaries of individual episodes) Or for that matter, where's the article on the Slashdot effect


      I'm glad something is documenting every minutae of our popular culture. Popular culture of the past is fascinating, and often tells you a lot more about what it was really like to live in the time than journalistic or encyclopedia articles or the works promoted to "high culture" of the period.

      For example I love old newspaper strips from the turn of the century to the Great Depression. They're endlessly fascinating, ofen very well written and draw you into a world that is very similar yet completely different than our own. They're also incredibly difficult to find, even some of the ones that were enormously popular (like Buster Brown or Mutt and Jeff), and there is almost nil written about them. Someone else might find this in Old West dimestore novels, or minor Victorian theater, who knows. What I wouldn't give for the "fanboys" of the past to have documented every minutae, because there are a lot of great works have simply faded into obscurity because they were considered "throwaway pop culture" at the time.

      That's the beauty of Wikipedia; it's limitless and only takes a small community (even of one) to decide something is relevant. If it's something you don't find interesting then there's no reason for you to bother with it. And who knows? In fifty years an article about Fanboyism, Buffy characters or the Slashdot effect may be extremely treasured information to someone else.

      By the way how long did it take The Beatles or Charlie Chaplin to make it to Britannica's pages?

    • by KeepQuiet (992584) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @12:36AM (#19965965)
      FYI, Britanicca is not a collection of popular culture or slang terms. It is an encyclopedia.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Threni (635302)
        > FYI, Britanicca is not a collection of popular culture or slang terms. It is an encyclopedia.

        Also, it's hard to imagine Britannica being unable to find loads of mistakes in Wikipedia.
    • Of course I know the slashdot effect (we all do) but Farked, that's the first time I've heard that term. Which is even funnier because I host an arts and music website that was 'farked'. They actually drove the poor disk right into the ground, took me two days working with my hosting provider to recover the server and restore the site. I wasn't laughing so much then, but I probably would have if I'd heard that.
    • by jez9999 (618189)
      Yeah, you say that, but there have been some depressing editorial decisions that have confined certain useful pieces of content such as you referenced to the scrapheap. There used to be 100% accurate records of all past UK Deal Or No Deal episodes, for example. They were removed because 'Wikipedia is not a data aggregation site'. Well, frankly, that strikes me as exactly what it is. Useful info does get removed from Wikipedia, and it's annoying. I agree with you that an internet encyclopaedia should ha
  • by timmarhy (659436) on Monday July 23, 2007 @10:40PM (#19965285)
    why so silent now? Oh thats right Wiki is brimming with incorrect information.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23, 2007 @10:41PM (#19965297)
    This is the kind of thing that Wikipedians love to trot out to show how much better they think they are than traditional sources, but this "corrections" list is not actually very meaningful. Heck, I once caught a typo in The Economist - does that mean a publication I made would thus be more accurate and reliable than The Economist? No, it just means they messed up once. Hey, when you produce a large volume of text, it happens. The real question is, how often do they mess up compared to how often we mess up? And that is a difficult question to find the true answer to, but one thing is for sure: it's certainly not hard to find errors in Wikipedia.
    • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Monday July 23, 2007 @10:53PM (#19965381) Homepage
      For what it's worth, I seem to recall, a year or two ago, this page having a note at the beginning about how it's not really all that serious of a page, more of a few quick jabs back at Britannica. I'm really very disappointed that it's being posted here with such trumped-up language in the summary.
      • by Frogbert (589961) <frogbert@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @12:58AM (#19966041)

        This page catalogs some mistakes and omissions in Encyclopædia Britannica (EB) and shows how they have been corrected in Wikipedia. Some errors have already been corrected in Britannica's online version. For many reasons, this page should not be taken too seriously as a comparison; it's just a little bit of fun. It does not mean one is better than the other.
        I'd say RTFA but for all I know when you looked at the page it could have said something completely different.
    • by timeOday (582209) on Monday July 23, 2007 @11:05PM (#19965471)
      I think that's the whole point - not that Wikipedia contains fewer errors than Britannica (the idea you're debunking), but that finding an error here or there in something doesn't prove anything, much less negate the value of the whole collection. It's simply to blunt accusations against Wikipedia, not bring down Britannica.

      However, to me and most people Wikipedia really is far more valuable than Britannica - simply because we have no access to Britannica. And I also think the vast majority of wikipedia pages are quite good - at least the ones anybody is interested in. Certainly a much higher S/N ratio than the Internet at large. I even have a downloaded copy of wikipedia on my PocketPC, it's amazing how rarely I can not settle issues or questions that arise by consulting it.

    • by alvinrod (889928) on Monday July 23, 2007 @11:13PM (#19965523)
      For every good example, there apparently are several bad examples [wikipedia.org] of this so called "wisdom of crowds." I'm not saying it doesn't work, but to pretend that it's the be all and end all of systems is just disingenuous.

      Wisdom of crowds is a pretty good concept, but in reality it turns out that the crowds aren't always so wise.
      • au contraire, mon ami. i'd say that pages like this show the true strength of a format like wikipedia. sometimes knowledge isn't clear cut. sometimes x% believe one thing and y% something else. pages like this show how contested this is and allow wikipedia to rise above the black on white approach necessitated by traditional printed media.
    • The point is that when you find an error in Wikipedia, you can fix it.

      Actually, I don't think the article really has a point, except to have fun. But every joke has some message as well, even if you have to make it up yourself.
  • by nurhussein (864532) on Monday July 23, 2007 @10:43PM (#19965309) Homepage
    Wikiality bites [photobucket.com].

    So says Stephen Colbert.

    Britannica should also check its facts about elephant populations. I heard it has tripled.
  • Nice, but doesn't the Britannica have Copy Editors? Sounds like someone's gloating that they found a hanging semi-colon or something.

  • Purposeful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Oligonicella (659917) on Monday July 23, 2007 @10:49PM (#19965353)
    How many of those errors were purposefully introduced? Encyclopedias and map makers do that all the time to see if others are plagerizing.
    • by gardyloo (512791) on Monday July 23, 2007 @10:57PM (#19965415)
      How many of those errors were purposefully introduced? Encyclopedias and map makers do that all the time to see if others are plagerizing.

          I love irony.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        That's not ironic, that's coincidental.
      • Assuming the use of Alanis-irony was continuing the joke, I love humorous coincidenses.
    • Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rm999 (775449) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @12:18AM (#19965885)
      If an encyclopedia purposefully says something incorrect, it has lost credibility for a poor reason. For example, if I want to know what the NP problem is, I don't consider it acceptable that an encyclopedia purposefully lied to me just to mess with its competitors.
    • People do this in dictionaries, not encyclopedias. In dictionaries, they introduce plausible sounding nonsense words, to see if anyone copies the word into their own dictionary without checking first to see if it comes up in old texts. If the word does get into another dictionary, it means that they add words without fully vetting them and producing original definitions based on the vetting process. There's no danger of causing serious harm by doing this, since in the worst case, someone believes that a non
    • by jimicus (737525)
      Yes, but they're generally minor typos rather than full-blown inaccuracy.
  • A Bit Biased (Score:2, Insightful)

    by EvanED (569694)
    Okay, so where's the Wikipedia article listing all the times that someone found something wrong with Wikipedia, and corrected it with information from E.B.? I'm sure that's not an uncommon occurrence either.

    Both Wikipedia and EB have their place. Wikipedia is great for getting a quick overview of something while you're sitting at your desk, or looking up random information like the plot of an individual TV episode. EB is better at having a bit more academic cred (at the very least, EB's mistakes are actual
    • is, you don't talk about errors. You talk about things in need of correction. Or maybe reorientation. But to conced an error? Never.
  • It's really not up to Wikipedia to correct another sources mistakes, only to note the conflict, unless verified by other sources. Though it's not on article space, it's a poor show. But getting to the main point, it's a bad idea to discredit Britannica when it's a source used throughout Wikipedia itself as a tertiary source.
  • It's good to see them correct some things. It's not like they haven't had errors before of course. However, wikipedia has some great features such as: always being online and free, covers 10000000 more topics, and doesn't come in a defunct hardback copy that takes 20 minutes to search by hand. Btw.. I still have my 1989 Encyclopedia Britannica and it looks great in the two sets of boxes in the basement.
  • ...is even self-aware [wikipedia.org]
  • It is kind of funny to see this come up now, given that this has been a very old dispute between Wikipedia and Britannica.

    Slashdot has already had at least [slashdot.org] three [slashdot.org] articles [slashdot.org] in the past few years on this topic.

  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday July 23, 2007 @11:27PM (#19965609)
    Wikipedia's problem has rarely been with the articles that get widespread review. The problem is with obscure knowledge; pages where only a handful of people maintain them. I wish I could find the op-ed piece I read a year or two ago about how a Florida group was using their Wikipedia entry to disseminate a view supporting their claim to being recognized as a tribe...so they could build a casino. I remember something about numerous statements being wrong, and the only people who would knew it was wrong (other people from that ethnic group who knew the oral history) were unlikely to surf wikipedia, much less correct it, or stick through an 'edit war'.

    This doesn't sound like a big deal, until you realize that it's the fringe stuff that can be consulted the most by adults, particularly those who consider themselves well educated.

    How many big fish in little ponds have axes to grind? More than most of us suspect, I'm guessing.

    • by Xtifr (1323) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @02:45AM (#19966503) Homepage
      That obscure stuff often isn't in Britannica at all. And a lot of the articles about obscure stuff in Wikipedia are fine. I think the only sensible conclusion to draw from this and every other comparison that has been made between the two is that Wikipedia and Britannica each have their strengths and weaknesses, and neither one is indisputably better than the other. They're different. Wikipedia is most useful when you treat it as a source for references, rather than blindly trusting the words on the page. Of course, that kind of goes against human nature, but what can you do? :) ~~~~
  • Slashdot citation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Burning1 (204959) on Monday July 23, 2007 @11:27PM (#19965611) Homepage
    This article does not cite any references or sources.
    Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
    Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
    This article has been tagged since July 2007.

    Among the wrong information collected on this page are the name at birth of Bill Clinton and the definition of the NP problems in mathematics."

    Seriously though, if you're interested in the details behind this comment, see the article about it in wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
  • by Taxman415a (863020) on Monday July 23, 2007 @11:41PM (#19965679) Homepage Journal
    This page has existed nearly since the beginning of Wikipedia. For a long long time it contained a disclaimer that it was just for the fun of it, and not to be taken too seriously. I think the disclaimer was taken off because it should be inherently obvious. Well apparently not to the submitter, who submitted what amounts to a flame bait story. Oh well, such is slashdot. Gotta get pageviews I suppose. But the submitter should have known better than to trump it up so much in the submission.
  • by L505 (884811) on Monday July 23, 2007 @11:46PM (#19965713) Homepage
    One of the reasons people reference Wikipedia a lot, and one of the reasons it is so popular, is that it has a very high page rank on google and other search engines. People are lazy, and whatever information pops up first after typing something into google will be what is clicked on, and of course referenced. Wikipedia is clicked on more so than other sources simply because Wikipedia has a higher page rank and is more conveniently available.

    Since wikipedia creates a community for users, it means people will link in to wikipedia more than any other encyclopedia (communities create links.. and links create higher page ranks).

    If some other encyclopedia wants to be king, then they have to increase their page rank. The other encyclopedias will have to create communities and create reasons for people to link to them, in order for them to increase their popularity on google.

    Since people usually choose the most convenient option, and since wikipedia is the most convenient option available on google for our mice to clicky dicky, the convenient option will win. It's not the fittest or the strongest that survive, but rather the most convenient solutions [z505.com] that survive.
    • If some other encyclopedia wants to be king, then they have to increase their page rank. The other encyclopedias will have to create communities and create reasons for people to link to them, in order for them to increase their popularity on google.

      The funny thing is - I see Wikipedia linked on the web extremely rarely. I don't think that really explains Wikipedia's high page rank.

      OTOH, Wikipedia is almost perfectly designed to spam Google. It's full of keywords, and linked keywords, and every pa

  • by fermion (181285) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @12:01AM (#19965801) Homepage Journal
    Ever since I was in middle school I was told that the encyclopedia was merely a starting point and not a reliable source. The nice thing about the Britannica was that it laid out a formal representation of what was known at the time it was written. Although it did not exactly cross our mind that it was wrong, we knew that it was not to be used as a basis of fact. Starting in the 80's, with the less formal style, I think it has become even less useful. This is also the problem with wikipedia. It is useful for pop culture, and some pop technical stuff, but I still go to mathworld when I want to know math, and britannica when I want to know history.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JohnFluxx (413620)
      Meh, Wolfram often makes the math too complicated too early, without a simple explanation. Wikipedia articles however usually have a simple explanation _and_ a picture (often animated) and an example, before they have the complicated general explanation.

      Each to their own I guess :-)
  • The Slashdot story says, "... one of the most revered founts of human knowledge, the Encyclopedias Britannica."

    That's not true in my experience. In my experience, Encyclopedia Britannica salesmen used high-pressure tactics to sell encyclopedias to poor, uneducated people by telling them that their children needed an encyclopedia to become educated. Educated people knew it was better to go to the library.

    EB has always been full of inadequate articles that were inadequate because the EB wanted to seem comprehensive, so it had a lot of articles, but didn't want to use a lot of expensive paper, so there was never enough space.

    A good example was the EB article on Barbara McClintock [wikipedia.org], 1983 Nobel Laureate in Medicine for her amazing, pioneering work in genetics. Quote from Wikipedia: "In 1930, McClintock was the first person to describe the cross-shaped interaction of homologous chromosomes during meiosis. During 1931, McClintock and a graduate student, Harriet Creighton, proved the link between chromosomal crossover during meiosis and the recombination of genetic traits."

    Why did it take 53 years for Barbara McClintock to win her Nobel Prize? Because other scientists had difficulty believing that genetic elements could jump from chromosome to chromosome.

    I haven't looked at an EB article in the paper edition in many years, but at one time the EB article about Barbara McClintock was short, maybe 600 words, and gave no idea of the fact that her scientific papers are so extensive they require 40 feet or more of shelf space.

    The EB article about Barbara McClintock was subtly misleading in other ways, also.

    From the Wikipedia article: "The importance of McClintock's contributions only came to light in the 1960s, when the work of French geneticists Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod described the genetic regulation of the lac operon, a concept she had demonstrated with Ac/Ds in 1951."

    Apparently because the controlling purpose of the EB has been to reduce amount of paper required, and apparently because the EB has always been more about creating a way for salesmen to be intimidating than about excellence, a lot of the EB articles have been worse than useless, because they are misleading.

    The EB has been a vicious business run for profit, in my opinion. The articles have always been lacking in excellence, because excellence would have cost more.
  • by DynaSoar (714234) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @12:13AM (#19965859) Journal
    EB was being corrected by others long before Wiki existed. A 9 year old corrected their statement that Mercury was the hottest planet. He correctly notified them that Venus was.

    Wiki is now operating at the level of a 9 year old.

    OTOH, perhaps Wiki will have an article on how often /. posts are wrong.

  • Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ocop (1132181) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @12:36AM (#19965963)
    I doubt Britannica's editor's let them accidentally kill people (rhetorically, at least). Wikipedia is probably more accurate for large, visible topics but equally (if not more so?) subject to painful bias on obscure subjects.
  • by mattlmattlmattl (229778) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @01:21AM (#19966135)
    In reaction to the Wikipedia page pointing out EB's errors, Conservapedia has
    put up a link in their "Breaking News" section to their page listing examples
    of Wikipedia's strongly liberal bias (you did know that, didn't you? Wikipedia
    is SIX TIMES MORE LIBERAL THAN AMERICA! (as reported by Wikipedia on their
    page about Conservapedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia [wikipedia.org] )).

    As of 11PM PST, July 23rd, Conservapedia has a link to the bias page at the top of
    their "Breaking News" section on their home page. But here's the direct link:
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia [conservapedia.com]

    A few choice examples:
    A devastating critique of Wikipedia by Fox News describes the impact of Wikipedia smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.
    Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.
    Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.
    Plus 63 more! Enjoy.
  • by Oldsmobile (930596) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @01:23AM (#19966143) Journal
    There are a few minor issues I have with the new winds blowing over at Wikipedia, but these are not pressing enough for me to get all worked up over them.

    Over all I'm positively surprised at Wikipedia's ability to continually get better, work on not only the content but also the form factor.

    A greater emphasis on references and citations has greatly contributed to some articles.

    There are a few problems, such as the fact that important and well known scientists are still reluctant to contribute.

    Overall though, Wikipedia is continually evolving and getting better, which is a whole lot more than can be said about Britannica or any other encyclopedia which have pretty much kept to their centuries old methods ideas.

    • I'm sure some "important and well known scientists" or at least some specialists in their chosen field have at least tried to edit Wikipedia, however they probably gave up after their additions were reverted or mutilated by 13 year olds.
      Like me - I'm not important or well known but I simply got fed up with edit wars and so I've given up Wikipedia and a few musical artists are probably the poorer for it ;). If you say anything controversial you're doomed - look at the stuff going on in the Gerry Adams entr
    • > There are a few problems, such as the fact that important and well known scientists are still reluctant to contribute. [My emphasis]

      You probably didn't mean it quite the way you wrote it, but it's worth correcting anyway for the benefit of other eyeballs.

      The accuracy of scientific reporting does not have a strong correlation with the public visibility of the scientist doing it, in general. In some cases, the well known scientists are not the important ones at all, but merely those who are best at self
  • So, I'm busy writing my school report, copying^hresearching the information in Wikipedia and EB. Now yo say that they are both wrong? So, now where should I go to crib^hresearch my paper? I only have 10 minutes left to do my paper, it must be at least five pages long, and it needs to include pictures!
  • Britannica is better than Wikipedia for one reason:

    When some makes an error in Britannica, almost nobody finds out. ...

    See the problem here? You have to be an author, and not a user, for this to be considered a "feature".
  • by wikinerd (809585) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @04:06AM (#19966869) Journal

    I once paid for on-line access to the full Britannica encyclopedia. I kept it for a while, and then cancelled my subscription. It didn't worth it for me. Perhaps other people would find it useful, but it's simply not for me. When I cancelled my subscription, I specifically told them that free sites like Wikipedia have put them out of competition, and it makes no sense to charge for access to their articles. Not only that, but I would say that for some articles (eg about computing) I would very much prefer Wikipedia or other sources even if the full Britannica was freely accessible, and I'm sorry to have to say this. I am not sure how Britannica makes money nowadays, but I'm afraid their business model is broken in our era. They have to adapt or die.



    That said, Wikipedia is not perfect (and I do contribute [wikipedia.org] and sometimes donate nowadays, although I was somewhat more critical in the past), but it's better than many of the alternatives. What could make Wikipedia work better would be a more volunteerist-cooperative ethic among its many members. Perhaps its lack thereof is a result of its publicity: It has become so big that people outside the Internet volunteerist culture have joined and use it for purposes other than creating a good education resource. There is also little coordination between the different language communities. However, the publicity of Wikipedia has made the world of wikis and Internet collaboration (in the open source way) more known to the masses, and this is a significant achievement. Wikipedia is now a good resource and I'd like it to remain as such or become better.

  • Pros and Cons (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nagora (177841) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @05:02AM (#19967117)
    The one think WP gets right is the online access. Freed of the need to limit paper use or even disc space (and therefore cost), an online encyclopedia can afford to expand on any topic for as far as that topic needs. WP gets everything else wrong: there's no business model, no quality control except agreeing with the consensus, no overall editing system either for the entire work or individual articles, a deranged approach to point-of-view, and - ironically - no good mechanism for keeping the length of trivial articles under control.

    TWW

  • by Britz (170620) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @05:05AM (#19967141) Homepage
    will be corrected in the next edition. So the Encyclopedia Britannica even gets some 'wisdom of crowds' in addtion to their own editors. The best of two worlds, and it would not have been possible without Wikipedia. Hurray for competition, hurray for Britannica, hurray for Wikipedia.

    I bet that Wikipedia editors sectetly read the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud

Working...