On Saturday 28 August 2004 19:26, Christopher Mahan wrote:
He also told
us which
articles he
modified and claimed that none of the mistakes was detected by now.
Could it perhaps be that he was trusted to not do that (misplaced
trust if you ask me).
no, he created a new user account for every new "contribution".
A real peer review is done by people who are paid.
In science reviewers are often not paid for their work. Which btw in many
cases means that the scientist who wrote the paper is paid by the public and
the two other scientists who are doing the review for free (free for the
journal) are paid by the public too. For the resulting journal, libraries
have to pay huge amounts of (public) money. Which is a great system for the
publishing company. Additionally the publishing companies even claim
copyright for their "work".
At least my
experience is that the
probability for finding a mistake in Wikipedia is by far higher
than for Britannica.
And britannica has been around what, 100+ years?
right, this surely makes a difference. But if it is possible to introduce bugs
into Wikipedia that easily then I have little doubt that Wikipedia will
always contain more mistakes per sentence than Britannica etc.
Marco, tell your friend next time he wants to
experiment, to use the
sandbox.
And if you like Britannica so much, then, it's there for you to use.
Oh, and I forgot, you have to pay to read Britannica articles. (look
up Blade Runner, the movie)
???
Neither is this guy my friend, nor did I say that I like Britannica more than
Wikipedia. As you can easily find out I am contributing to the German as well
as to the English Wikipedia.
If Jens challenges the author of the article it is perfect legitim to tell
Jens what happended to "de" in a similar case.
Wikipedians are very enthusiastic about Wikipedia and I still am a big fan of
this project and tell everyone about it (whether s/he wants to hear about it
or not ;-). But in our enthusiasm we should not forget that there are areas,
were Wikipedia can improve. I believe that factual correctness still is such
an area where Wikipedia can and should become better and the example from
"de" makes that even clearer.
It is perfect to counter my arguments, or if you tend to agree to think about
what we can improve. For instance I consider Tomasz response usefull. His
idea can certainly help with dealing with the overwhelming amount on "recent
changes" and therefore could make Wikipedia better.
On the other hand the last part of your comment reads "go away and use
Britannica instead", which I don't find too helpfull.
best regards,
Marco