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(a)Wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <43A15705.2020605(a)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