__/ [ 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.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:50am up 32 days 13:22, 8 users, load average: 0.82, 0.72, 0.84
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
