Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 12/15/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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