Wikipedia survives research test

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wikipedia survives research test

Amos Shapir
Here is a quote fron the BBC's site:

* Wikipedia survives research test *
The online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the
Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia survives research test

Tom Peters-2
Op 17-dec-2005, om 11:09 heeft Amos Shapir het volgende geschreven:

> Here is a quote fron the BBC's site:
>
> * Wikipedia survives research test *
> The online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the
> Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
> Full story:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Duh, that is based on a rather limited sample.  I do have the  
Britannica (and did notice some errors), and contribute actively to  
the Wikipedia.  I think in the Wikipedia you are more likely to  
encounter pet theories, half thruths, and lies, than in the Britannica.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia survives research test

Caius
>> * Wikipedia survives research test *
>> The online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the
>> Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
>> Full story:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
> Duh, that is based on a rather limited sample.  I do have the  
> Britannica (and did notice some errors), and contribute actively to  the
> Wikipedia.  I think in the Wikipedia you are more likely to  encounter
> pet theories, half thruths, and lies, than in the Britannica.

I've always thought pretty high of Wikipedia when I was just a reader,
but since I've been contributing to it I have (ironically) become more
critical of it because you get exposed to everything that happens behind
the encyclopedic façade.

It's also besides the point - Wikipedia doesn't have to be worlds BEST
encyclopedia, just the most free, which it certainly is.

Marc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia survives research test; founder doesn't survive???

Ed Kohout
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia/

Wikipedia founder 'shot by friend of Siegenthaler'

World mourns Lazarus for the Web 2.0 generation

By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Published Saturday 17th December 2005 00:32 GMT

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has been shot dead, according to
Wikipedia, the online, up-to-the-minute encyclopedia.

Apparently, the assassin was a "friend" of the victim of a recent
controversy which ironically, smeared former Robert F Kennedy aid John
Seigenthaler as a suspect in the assassination of both Kennedy
brothers. That claim, which the site carried for several months, along
with the assertion that Seigenthaler had lived in Russia, was
eventually proved false.

"At 18:54 EST on December 12, John Seigenthaler's wife, who was
infuriated at Wikipedia regarding the recent scandal regarding his role
in the Kennedy Assassination, came into the house, where Jim was having
dinner. Wearing a mask, he [sic] shot him three times in the head and
ran," reported the online reference source.

The free-for-all, write-it-yourself website prides itself on its fact
checking.

Wales made his fortune in bond trading before setting up the Bomis
pornography ring. A long time devotee of Ayn Rand, Wales recently
criticized the decision to grant federal funds to the victims of
Hurricane Katrina, according to reports on a web discussion board.

With co-founder Larry Sanger, who has since left the project, he helped
kick-start the project just as the dot com boom was collapsing, and now
he's the public face of Wikipedia. Before his "death", Jimmy Wales had
become a familiar sight on cable TV news, usually vowing to "tighten
up" the project's editing processes in response to the public scandal
that had broken that week.

His death will be mourned by many across the internet.

The news of the "shooting" even made the venerable London Times,
yesterday. The Times noted that after the first Seigenthaler scandal
broke, the now "deceased" Jimmy Wales had, as he has so often, promised
to tighten up a few nuts and bolts in the "encyclopedia's" editorial
processes.

He certainly had his work cut out.

"A cursory search today suggested that these procedures - which require
contributors to register basic details before posting articles - were
being defeated by a relentless wave of vandals, apparently
co-ordinating their assaults from a series of chatrooms dedicated to
its demise."

"The loss of credibility has caused commentators to question whether
Wikipedia is destined to follow the LA Times's doomed experiment in
unrestricted internet comment, Wikitorial, which had to be closed down
after just two days under a bombardment of pornographic postings."

Is nothing sacred?

So is Wikipedia a source of reference, or just a great big game?

Speaking to The Register last month, former Britannica editor Bob
McHenry charictarized Wikipedia as a game, one of many multiplayer
shoot-em-up games that have been made popular by the spread of
networked computers.

"It's got the public playing the encyclopedia game," he told us
recently. "It's also like playing a game in the sense that playing it
has no consequences. If something goes wrong, you just restart. No
problem!" he said.

For the record, The Register must note that the ubermeister of
Wikipedia appears to be alive and well

The "news" of his death consisted of a random edit to his own,
particularly fulsome entry on the encyclopedia he helped create. ®



=====


--- Marc Schoolderman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >> * Wikipedia survives research test *
> >> The online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as
> the
> >> Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
> >> Full story:
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
> > Duh, that is based on a rather limited sample.  I do have the  
> > Britannica (and did notice some errors), and contribute actively to
>  the
> > Wikipedia.  I think in the Wikipedia you are more likely to
> encounter
> > pet theories, half thruths, and lies, than in the Britannica.
>
> I've always thought pretty high of Wikipedia when I was just a
> reader,
> but since I've been contributing to it I have (ironically) become
> more
> critical of it because you get exposed to everything that happens
> behind
> the encyclopedic façade.
>
> It's also besides the point - Wikipedia doesn't have to be worlds
> BEST
> encyclopedia, just the most free, which it certainly is.
>
> Marc.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia survives research test

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir
Dear Tom and Calendar People

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Tom Peters
Sent: 18 December 2005 21:04
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Wikipedia survives research test


Op 17-dec-2005, om 11:09 heeft Amos Shapir het volgende geschreven:

> Here is a quote fron the BBC's site:
>
> * Wikipedia survives research test *
> The online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the
> Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
> Full story:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Duh, that is based on a rather limited sample.  I do have the  
Britannica (and did notice some errors), and contribute actively to  
the Wikipedia.  I think in the Wikipedia you are more likely to  
encounter pet theories, half thruths, and lies, than in the Britannica.

KARL SAYS: An exception being the tropical year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year

Karl

07(15(18 till noon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia survives research test; founder doesn't survive???

Caius
In reply to this post by Ed Kohout
Ed Kohout wrote:

> Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has been shot dead, according to
> Wikipedia, the online, up-to-the-minute encyclopedia.

It's ironic that a editor-reviewed online "journalistic" site like The
Register (ahem, I suppose that's a eufemism) puts so much news into that
while on the "public restroom" Wikipedia it was a single line which was
probably quickly reverted.

They could've also jumped on all the various vandals who replaced the
article with: "JIMMY DONAL WALES RAPES THEN EATS BABIES AT *3911
HARRISBURG ST NE, ST PETERSBURG, FL 33703* HE IS A CANNIBAL-PEDOPHILE"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Jimmy_Wales

Marc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia survives research test

John Hynes
In reply to this post by Tom Peters-2
I don't see the point of comparing the two encyclopedias.  They are two very
different things.  Britannica is taken to be an authority, and while
Wikipedia may not be, it has a breadth, and sometimes depth, that Britannica
cannot come close to.  That is to say, Wikipedia has a vast amount of
information on subjects that Britannica does not even cover.  It also tends
to be much more up-to-date.

I find Wikipedia a good starting point on finding basic information on many
subjects, but I don't consider it a primary source.  One problem with
Wikipedia is that all contributors are equal, so the ignorant, those with
agendas, etc., often get the last word, especially in the more obscure
articles.

--
John Hynes
www.decimaltime.org
2005 Dec. 20.127 UT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Peters" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia survives research test


> Op 17-dec-2005, om 11:09 heeft Amos Shapir het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Here is a quote fron the BBC's site:
>>
>> * Wikipedia survives research test *
>> The online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the
>> Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
>> Full story:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
>
> Duh, that is based on a rather limited sample.  I do have the  Britannica
> (and did notice some errors), and contribute actively to  the Wikipedia.
> I think in the Wikipedia you are more likely to  encounter pet theories,
> half thruths, and lies, than in the Britannica.
>