__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:42 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ Philip ] on Tuesday 30 May 2006 04:42 \__
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Microsoft Making a Better Wikipedia!?
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | The difference between this and Wikipedia is two-fold: first,
>>>> | Microsoft has paid researchers finding and publishing articles, which
>>>> | guarantees a steady stream of articles and valid information, and
>>>> | second, all changes made are first moderated by Microsoft staff to
>>>> | filter advertising, false information, or pure trolling/defacement of
>>>> | a site.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://neosmart.net.nyud.net:8080/blog/archives/176
>>>>
>>>> MSN Encarta; needs subscription to edit; catching on improbable.
>>>
>>> Sounds like FUD to me. I remember a Wikipedia to Britannica bake-off
>>> that came out a dead heat. I bet Britannica would do better that Encarta,
>>>
>>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=675
>>>
>>
http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2005/12/20/wikipedia_vs_britannica_apples_vs_oranges
>>>
>>
http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
>>>
>>> All this from a quick google search
>>
>> The Britannica-Wikipedia survey was said to be ill-conducted. It could
>> have been FUD -- even one that was supported under the table. The referees
>> were not accounting for article _scale_, which is often greater in
>> Wikipedia. They only counted inaccuracies and mistakes. Wikipedia had a
>> strong rebuttal, and mind you, they continue to improve all the time, as
>> more Wikipedians join the 'team' and technology (e.g. for moderation) is
>> improved by MediaWiki. Britannica, along with other commercially-motivated
>> teams, are fighting a losing battle. They are also less readily available.
>> My search bar in Firefox is Wikipedia.
>>
>> Evolve or die.
>>
>
>
> I agree entirely - the times they are a-changing... I have a Britannica
> here, (recently purchased), as well as full OED. They're both very
> useful for the kids, and me, too. The internet, and such as Wiki, are
> valuable indeed, but having an alternative authority, or two, is a good
> thing. I've got a couple of smaller encyclopedias, too - including one
> from about the turn of the century, for comparison purposes. Attitudes
> have changed quite a lot, but facts haven't very much :-)
All these piles of books are rather worthless. They are slower to browse
(e.g. find term, navigate through citations) and are out-of-date. At my
parents' home, I believe we have about 4 separate encyclopedias, each
weighing at over 10 volumes. What a waste of money (and trees). If only the
impact of the Internet could be better predicted. Look at the libraries
nowadays. They will slowly be emptied from people and become more like
warehouses. Google and Microsoft are scanning books...
> I suspect that, in the end, we'll see a competing wiki, but that would
> be good, too.
The Chinese initiated/announced their own 'Wikipedia' about a week ago. The
unnerving feeling that I get from a Chinese government-inclined
encyclopaedia... much like that of book burning.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
VISTA - Venereally-Infectious, Sexually-Transmitted Aliment
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:45am up 33 days 10:17, 8 users, load average: 0.14, 0.63, 0.74
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
