On 8/6/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I just came across http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9433599, which is the lead section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about wikipedia. There is also one about wikis in general: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9404276.
These articles appear to be taken from the current revision of the EB itself, not the yearbook or any other of these sources (on this web site, you can never be sure).
EB is now the second (or third, depending on how you count) encyclopedia to mention wikipedia. The Columbia Encyclopedia has one and the 21st edition of the Brockhaus encyclopedia (in German).
I don't have full access to the EB article from here and I am very curious about its accuracy :)
Fun fact: Last time I checked, Brockhaus refused to call Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Mathias
Well, EB is not afraid to call us an Encyclopedia, although there is an amusing focus on Seigenthaler, and some things which I think may be factually incorrect.
For example: "The author of this information could not be identified, since all that is known about contributors is their computers' IP, or Internet protocol, addresses (many of which are randomly generated each time a user goes online). (The contributor later confessed and apologized, saying that he wrote the false information as a joke.)"
Maybe it is me, but this looks like a contradiction- if the author could not be identified (we all know he could and was) then how could he later apologize? Quite aside, IPs are not randomly generated...
Or: Wikipedia administrators now have the power to block particular IP addresses—a power they used in 2006 after it was found that staff members of some U.S. congressional representatives had altered articles to eliminate unfavourable information. Articles on political subjects have become the greatest test of Wikipedia's principle of neutrality."
Here I'm not sure whether he is implying or stating that admins only got the power to block IPs and users *after* the Seigenthaler affair or just before the House of Representatives scandal. Either way, he's wrong: IP blocks were implemented years and years ago; didn't Jimmy ban a user in the first year?
There are other more minor points, like for example, in the following where he uses "anonymous", it should really be pseudonymous:
"These observers point out that identifiable individuals are far easier to hold accountable for mistakes, bias, and bad writing than is a community of anonymous volunteers, but other observers respond that it is not entirely clear if there is a substantial difference."
And there are some odd passages, where it could be read as damning or praising Wikipedia:
"Regardless of such controversies—perhaps in part because of them—Wikipedia has become a model of what the collaborative Internet community can and cannot do."
All in all, a decent article. Newspapers usually do a lot worse, FWIW.
~maru