Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 12/15/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think that the "Nature" article was largely sympathetic. Our best response would be to review the articles surveyed to make whatever corrections are needed, or even to make corrections that they failed to notice as well.
Agreed.
Once this is done it could be brought to the attention of the "Nature" staff and a challenge issued to see how long it takes EB to make its corrections. 8-)
But why, why why go into this competition thing? :(
Touché! I had in mind the ability to correct things quickly, which is not there in a paper encyclopedia, but you're right, it does seem competitive in retrospect. My remarks were perhaps insensitive.
I believe Britannica and Wikipedia are pursuing the same goals, with different means. Although I find it excellent that we take Britannica as an example and as a goal, I believe we have much to learn from them, and they from us. Can't we work hand in hand to achieve that goal? Competition should be an incentive to get better, for them and for us, not because we want to be the best, not because of stupid numbers, but because we are looking to achieve this:
"Le but d'une encyclopédie est de rassembler les connaissances éparses sur la surface de la terre ; d'en exposer le système général aux hommes avec qui nous vivons, et de les transmettre aux hommes qui viendront après nous" --Denis Diderot
(bad translation) "the goal of an encyclopaedia is to gather knowledge scattered all over the Earth's surface; to expose its general system to the men with whom we live, and to pass it along to those who will come after us " --Denis Diderot
Tell you what, what I hope is that in 2 years from now, Nature will do the same study, and find 0 mistake. Neither in Britannica, nor in Wikipedia.
Sentiment makes me agree with you, and this noble idea. I wonder if Britannica can even survive. That's sad for an institution that's been around for 250 years. They were built on the model of a bulky multi-volume set of books. Who's going to buy that if one can find so much more information at no cost? At present Wikipedia is well ahead of Britannica in quantity, and almost equal in quality. Recent events have forced us to look at quality, and there is certainly incentive to do something about it. Where does that leave them when the only asset they have left is an established name?
If one can depend on Alexa ratings they show that we are at that part of the pyramid where the air is thin. How we managed to get there has probably left most of us puzzled. When you're that big it's hard to roll over in bed without crushing the one beside you. What are the ethical implications of being where we are? Maybe as a group we need to address some of these issues in Boston.
Can I start pushing the POV that Wikimania 2007 should be in Africa?
Ec