Stan Shebs wrote:
Jimbo is being a little too modest when he says that scholars haven't picked articles for fact-checking - we have a number of scholars and other authorities who are WPers, the articles in their areas get pretty thoroughly fact-checked, and they watch those articles closely to see that new errors don't get in. The only thing that hasn't happened yet is a large-scale systematic review.
Me? Modest? Never. ;-)
The actual question was about a systematic review; I did emphasize exactly what you did -- it's false to assume that Wikipedians aren't scholars and authorities, many of us are, and lots of quality review and comparisons to other reference works goes on all the time.
source, anybody can compare the two. I have no personal experience of aircraft carriers, but I can make sure a launching date matches what the Royal Navy says it is.
That's an excellent example.
The Britannica guy should read a little more Linux history, so he doesn't embarass himself by saying exactly the same things that Microsoft said about Linux years ago.
There's a huge difference, too, between Microsoft and Britannica. With software, there are network externalities and "lock-in", and it is taking time for free alternatives to overcome that. But Britannica enjoys no such natural advantages -- it's quite easy for anyone to "switch" which encyclopedia they use, as opposed to being a slight nuisance (or worse) to "switch" operating systems.
Of course, we, too, enjoy no such "lock-in" -- so if proprietary publishers figure out a way to produce content as comprehensive as ours, as accurate as ours, and at a lower cost, then they will outcompete us.
But, fat chance of that.
--Jimbo