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.
Heh, funny. This opening description is interesting: "...encyclopaedia operating under an open-source management style...uses a collaborative software known as wiki that facilitates the creation and development of articles." What an interesting idea to describe our "management style" as "open-source" and to relegate the role of the wiki as just "facilitating" article creation and development. Is this the prejudice of a "traditional" encyclopaedia which has rigid management structures, and sees that as the most striking difference?
Pity I don't have the whole thing to read. It would be interesting to compare four articles: WP on WP, WP on EB, EB on WP and EB on EB. How do we each do for our biases? Do our biases line up as expected - that EB has a much lower opinion of us, than we do of them?
Steve