Hi Sabine (y todo mundo) For all Australian wikipedians, in particular, for Melburnians, this week's Thursday edition of the Age had two articles on wikipedia, one of which was this comparison with Britannica. There was one story in the main body of the Age, and another story in the Live Wire pull out (an IT supplement) - I can't remember which was which. Salutamu pippu d'angelo
Message: 9 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:44:05 +0100 From: Sabine Cretella Subject: [Wikipedia-l] comparison between Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia (German) To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List , wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Message-ID: 43A15705.2020605@yahoo.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
http://www.golem.de/0512/42221.html
well ... this is why page creation by anonymous users is not so bad ...
And why it is impossible that Encyclopedia britannica needs to proof and reproof each single word it writes
http://www.golem.de/0512/42221.html
"both" encyclopeadias - this means even that one that according to our infos needs to proof every single word - has the same amout of critical errors in the same articles only in different places ... - hmmmmm .....
considering that Encyclopedia Britannica is 237 years old and Wikipedia only 5 .... hmmmmm ....
(sorry I don't have time to translate this article - maybe there's an English one around as well???)
Well I suppose it is time to go "back to ordinary" functioning of Wikipedia (anonymous users can create articles - this is even easier to check to my opinion - just switch off all registered users and have special regard to anonymous page creations).
Ciao, Sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
------------------------------
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3