G'day folks,
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and...
"In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24 hours, * Britannica's* president, Jorge Cauz, said in an interview today." (More in story)
Regards
Keith Old
There are three things _any_ encyclopedia must be:
* free—as in the sense of freedom, not necessarily in the sense of beer; * reliable—in other words, accurate, coherent, and neutral; and * global—that is, multilingual and written by a diverse, broad group of people.
Britannica might be reliable, and it might become slightly global, but it is not yet multilingual and it isn't free.
—Thomas Larsen
2009/1/22 Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
G'day folks,
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and...
"In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24 hours, * Britannica's* president, Jorge Cauz, said in an interview today." (More in story)
Also fom the article: "He said the encyclopedia had set a benchmark of a 20-minute turnaround to update the site with user-submitted edits to existing articles"
That'll probably be faster than us once flagged revisions is switched on (compare with the German expeiment, where backlogs are up to 3 weeks) which should make for an interesting role reversal. (I don't want to derail this thread into arguing about flaggedrevs, just thought it was amusing)
the wub
the wub wrote
Also fom the article: "He said the encyclopedia had set a benchmark of a 20-minute turnaround to update the site with user-submitted edits to existing articles"
That'll probably be faster than us once flagged revisions is switched on (compare with the German expeiment, where backlogs are up to 3 weeks) which should make for an interesting role reversal. (I don't want to derail this thread into arguing about flaggedrevs, just thought it was amusing)
Certainly that benchmark is impressive. I have a personal figure of about ten minutes, for "how long it takes to add a new researched fact to enWP". Assuming only this is a fact-checking exercise based on Google, it would be quite something for EB to sustain this 24/7. Of course it may be deduced some other way, for example telling employees that they are supposed to vet two dozen submissions in a working day, and rather assuming a good match of employees to time zones. But in any case there would be a question-mark over how things scale. Presumably they are not intending a big expansion of coverage on current affairs?
Charles
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
the wub wrote
Also from the article:
Re-quoting link to article (more comments below):
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and...
"He said the encyclopedia had set a benchmark of a 20-minute turnaround to update the site with user-submitted edits to existing articles"
That'll probably be faster than us once flagged revisions is switched on (compare with the German expeiment, where backlogs are up to 3 weeks) which should make for an interesting role reversal. (I don't want to derail this thread into arguing about flaggedrevs, just thought it was amusing)
Certainly that benchmark is impressive. I have a personal figure of about ten minutes, for "how long it takes to add a new researched fact to enWP". Assuming only this is a fact-checking exercise based on Google, it would be quite something for EB to sustain this 24/7. Of course it may be deduced some other way, for example telling employees that they are supposed to vet two dozen submissions in a working day, and rather assuming a good match of employees to time zones. But in any case there would be a question-mark over how things scale. Presumably they are not intending a big expansion of coverage on current affairs?
There may also be a big presumption of rejecting most updates. Their standards may be (almost certainly are) different to ours. Rather than verifiability and "sounds OK and has sources" (I know, I know...), they may intend to only accept the best updates and the ones that really do improve the articles. They may also be looking for major improvements and additions, rather than incremental improvements. Though doing that in 20 minutes does sound optimistic. A 20-minute turnaround does sound more like a "can you copyedit and proofread our articles for us?" approach. I guess the only way to find out is to go and suggest different sorts of changes and see what gets accepted.
And a "fact checking exercise based on Google" can be excellent in some areas and useless in others, as we all know already. I really hope EB aren't doing that. Hopefully their fact-checking would involve access to various paid-for databases and a library of books as well. If the book needed can be found quickly (in the same room), 20 minutes is just about doable. If the update is large and books needed are in a remote location, then you would be talking hours and days to update.
"Would-be editors on the Britannica site will have to register using their real names and addresses before they are allowed to modify or write their own articles."
That sounds like an attempt to merge Wikipedia, Knol and Britannica.
On something else completely, the comparison isn't direct:
"Founded in 1994, the Britannica.com's database contains articles comprising more than 46 million words [...] Founded in 2001, Wikipedia is now available in more than 250 languages and attracts about 700 million visitors annually. The English editon alone contains nearly 2.7 million articles."
Britannica is 46 million words. Do we know how many *words* Wikipedia is? How many *articles* Britannica is?
Carcharoth
PS. That's an *awful* picture of Jimmy! :-)
Do we know how many *words* Wikipedia is?
Current estimate on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes is 1,178,620,320 words (1.2 billion), although that's based on a words per article count from October 2006 when the statistics program exploded.
How many *articles* Britannica is?
Um... 4?
the wub wrote:
Also fom the article: "He said the encyclopedia had set a benchmark of a 20-minute turnaround to update the site with user-submitted edits to existing articles"
That'll probably be faster than us once flagged revisions is switched on (compare with the German expeiment, where backlogs are up to 3 weeks) which should make for an interesting role reversal.
So what if it takes 3 weeks? So what if there are backlogs? Even accepting the premise that EB can maintain such a breakneck speed, whoever defined this as a race to do things more quickly?
Ec
On 29/01/2009, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So what if it takes 3 weeks? So what if there are backlogs? Even accepting the premise that EB can maintain such a breakneck speed, whoever defined this as a race to do things more quickly?
Well, they have less users than us. They have less scope than us, and they're probably growing more slowly than us, and they're not much more reliable than us, and they require people paying them money to be able to edit the articles as well as to read the articles.
I'd say that there's a defacto race there, even if nobody has defined it as such; they're trying to compete with a free, larger competitor before going broke.
Ec
2009/1/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
So what if it takes 3 weeks? So what if there are backlogs? Even accepting the premise that EB can maintain such a breakneck speed, whoever defined this as a race to do things more quickly?
Our readers and our content writers. Speed of updates is a feature much liked by readers (and back when people where doing WPvsEB was often used as a point in wikipedia's favor).
For our content writers the instant results are a significant part of their reward for contributing.
geni wrote:
2009/1/29 Ray Saintonge:
So what if it takes 3 weeks? So what if there are backlogs? Even accepting the premise that EB can maintain such a breakneck speed, whoever defined this as a race to do things more quickly?
Our readers and our content writers. Speed of updates is a feature much liked by readers (and back when people where doing WPvsEB was often used as a point in wikipedia's favor).
For our content writers the instant results are a significant part of their reward for contributing.
Speed of updates may be a factor for current events, but I see nothing to convince me that EB wants to enter that field. Nor do I see them as competitors to upload the latest plot line of "Desperate Housewives" as soon as it has aired.
Has there been a survey of non-editing readers about the speed of updates, and what that means to them? I suspect that their demands would involve a significantly longer yardstick than the minute. It's not as though we were a newspaper trying to get the latest scoop on its competitor. Compared to Wikinews, Wikipedia should not need to feel that pressure.
I don't share your passion for instant gratification, a concept with problems that extend far beyond the wikis. With flagged revisions our content writers would continue to see the results of their labours immediately. If they are any good at what they do they can also feel confident that the general public will also soon see their changes.
Ian Woollard wrote:
Well, they have less users than us. They have less scope than us, and they're probably growing more slowly than us, and they're not much more reliable than us, and they require people paying them money to be able to edit the articles as well as to read the articles.
In other words we're already far ahead of them. Having people pay for the right to edit can't be a winning strategy; that would justify a claim from our side that they are a vanity press. :-)
I'd say that there's a defacto race there, even if nobody has defined it as such; they're trying to compete with a free, larger competitor before going broke.
If EB is in a race to the bottom their gravity is the only help they need.
Ec
2009/1/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Speed of updates may be a factor for current events, but I see nothing to convince me that EB wants to enter that field. Nor do I see them as competitors to upload the latest plot line of "Desperate Housewives" as soon as it has aired.
Has there been a survey of non-editing readers about the speed of updates, and what that means to them? I suspect that their demands would involve a significantly longer yardstick than the minute. It's not as though we were a newspaper trying to get the latest scoop on its competitor. Compared to Wikinews, Wikipedia should not need to feel that pressure.
Failing to keep up with deaths is something EB has taken flack for in the past.
I don't share your passion for instant gratification, a concept with problems that extend far beyond the wikis.
What you have a passion for doesn't really matter. What our driveby content adders have a passion for does.
With flagged revisions our content writers would continue to see the results of their labours immediately.
False. Only logged in users will see them.
If they are any good at what they do they can also feel confident that the general public will also soon see their changes.
See the backlog of unpatrolled new pages.
2009/1/22 Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
"In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/22/1336241
I found this anonymous Slashdot comment interesting:
=== That's exactly the problem, and one which the Britannica guy doesn't get. I'm only minimally interested in what some expert at Britannica thinks is the right answer, and a bunch of citations back to the print version of their encyclopedia as justification is useless.
It's the plethora of sources in the Wikipedia articles that are most valuable. I know the Wikipedia article is a cobbled together opinion that might be worthless and even wrong. So what? I can read the cited sources and form my own opinion, an option which Britannica doesn't really offer. They think they are their own authority and that their readers can end their investigation there because of the high quality. Sorry, that's stupid. Real research doesn't work that way. The days of "proof by authority" are rapidly fading. "[Citation needed]" is the way that real science has always worked, and most other subjects. You figure it out for yourself by reviewing what has already been done, and you back up your claims. It isn't perfect, but it is much better than no citations or "because we're Britannica!"
Even if Britannica does pop up in Google's search results I usually don't bother looking, because I know it probably won't tell me anything I don't already know. Meanwhile the Wikipedia article probably cites the most relevant and recent papers, and maybe even has a link to a PDF of it or another relevant website. I can dig deeper. The citations are weak in Britannica.
Google's ranking is appropriate because it reflects the fact that people link to the Wikipedia articles more, probably because those articles really are more useful as a starting point for research. ===
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/22/1336241
I found this anonymous Slashdot comment interesting:
=== That's exactly the problem, and one which the Britannica guy doesn't get. I'm only minimally interested in what some expert at Britannica thinks is the right answer, and a bunch of citations back to the print version of their encyclopedia as justification is useless. [...]
Well, to be fair, their previous model (ca. EB1911) was reasonably interesting: get some of the most well-known people in each area to write a broad overview of the area, suitable for general audiences. Opinionated, sure, but the opinion of someone with some claim to be worth reading, generally. The real problem is that they still have the authoritative voice and lack of citations, but no longer manage to recruit suitably authoritative authors to write (and sign) the articles.
Even if they did, I'd find Wikipedia more useful for many things, such as getting overviews of fields that have multiple competing viewpoints, and pointers into the literature for further research. But I'd probably read Britannica, too, whereas currently I don't really.
-Mark
Keith Old wrote:
"In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24 hours, * Britannica's* president, Jorge Cauz, said in an interview today." (More in story)
What's their business plan? Vetting the information to the standards they profess is going to take a considerable staff to keep up with the work that could in theory come their way.
What will be their revenue source to sustain all this? There's a limited market for multi-volume dead-tree encyclopædias, and depending on advertising revenues in the middle of a global financial is not very secure. Maybe a sugar-daddy with bottomless pockets and insatiable vanity?
Ec
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0
Keith Old wrote:
New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content
will be
rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24 hours, * Britannica's* president, Jorge Cauz, said in an interview today."
(More in
story)
<What's their business plan? Vetting the information to the standards they profess is going to take a considerable staff to keep up with the work that could in theory come their way.
What will be their revenue source to sustain all this? There's a limited market for multi-volume dead-tree encyclopædias, and depending on advertising revenues in the middle of a global financial is not very secure. Maybe a sugar-daddy with bottomless pockets and insatiable vanity?
Ec>> --------------------------------------------
That this is not a dead-tree encyclopedia is exactly the point. This is on their website. They do not plan to incorporate this material into their print version.
Will _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
G'day folks,
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and...
"In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
I am a big fan of Britannica and hope they stay in business. With that in mind, I actually sat down to try this out today.
I encountered several problems: * I can't tell if you have to pay for access to *edit* the articles behind a subscription wall, as well as view them * The site doesn't load properly in Firefox * No style guide provided that I found; one has to be familiar with Britannica house style, presumably * I can't figure out where to enter "my real name and address" * I found an article I know something about and made a few changes; after hitting "submit", however, the flash-based window just hung, spinning its wheels. Perhaps that is because I don't have the newest version of flash here at work, which is the only place I have IE. * all the ads everywhere, even in search results and as hotlinked keywords in articles, is very unappealing
It's unfortunate that they still seem beset upon by technical difficulties, because this would be an interesting experiment for them.
-- phoebe
Wikipedia only lives of donations and has no ads. Britannica lives of selling huge volumes and has its page full of ads...
-- Alvaro
On 04-02-2009, at 20:44, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
G'day folks,
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and...
"In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
I am a big fan of Britannica and hope they stay in business. With that in mind, I actually sat down to try this out today.
I encountered several problems:
- I can't tell if you have to pay for access to *edit* the articles
behind a subscription wall, as well as view them
- The site doesn't load properly in Firefox
- No style guide provided that I found; one has to be familiar with
Britannica house style, presumably
- I can't figure out where to enter "my real name and address"
- I found an article I know something about and made a few changes;
after hitting "submit", however, the flash-based window just hung, spinning its wheels. Perhaps that is because I don't have the newest version of flash here at work, which is the only place I have IE.
- all the ads everywhere, even in search results and as hotlinked
keywords in articles, is very unappealing
It's unfortunate that they still seem beset upon by technical difficulties, because this would be an interesting experiment for them.
-- phoebe
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l