The de: Wikipedia recently underwent its second professional content test, this time overseen by Die Zeit, Germany's leading weekly newspaper. And friends, this "popular dispenser of knowledge on the Internet", this "desert of text", is HOT. While it is "completely without [multi]media" and "does not support complex search queries", it "stands in first place when it comes to text content," receiving top aggregate marks in three broad content categories -- Natural Science and Technology, Humanities and Social Science, and Culture -- matched only by Encarta Professional. Moreover, its "lead in current events is a mile wide".
This review was longer than the c't review -- seven terms in each of 21 fields -- but the article was shorter and less detailed. Die ZEIT was kind enough to extend the comparison to include both smaller German encyclopedias (Data Becker, aimed at a younger audience, and Universallexikon) and the English-language Britannica 2005 DVD. Britannica, she of the "legendary 32-volume set," took top marks in the sciences, but fell down when it came to sports and, most notably, current events. All the same, "the 165,000 well-sorted Web links alone are worth the price".
As to that perennial bugbear, editorial responsibility, the reviewers tackle it with bold eloquence:
"Those concerned with the quality of [Wikipedia] articles, because no established editorship takes responsibility for them, can rest at ease: we had most of the Wikipedia articles we examined judged separately by specialists in their respective fields, and they were thoroughly done. The texts still have gaps here and there, but they make up for it elsewhere with precise and detailed descriptions. And everyone can engage himself as a gap-filler: clicking on the link "edit this article" makes the reader an author."
It's enough to make me want to be a first-time author all over again.
Original article : http://www.zeit.de/2004/43/C-Enzyklop_8adien-Test (English translation available onli^B^B^B^B on request.)
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:10:39PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
Sj wrote:
All the same, "the 165,000 well-sorted Web links alone are worth the price".
Web links are not copyrightable, now are they? ;-)
Not like we don't have any of these, but a cross-check might not hurt...
A collection of weblinks is. especially if it's commented
ciao, tom
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:10:39PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
Sj wrote:
All the same, "the 165,000 well-sorted Web links alone are worth the price".
Web links are not copyrightable, now are they? ;-)
Not like we don't have any of these, but a cross-check might not hurt...
A collection of weblinks is. especially if it's commented
I didn't say "just copy the whole thing", did I?
Magnus
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:02:28 +0200, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
A collection of weblinks is. especially if it's commented
I didn't say "just copy the whole thing", did I?
Speaking of neatly-aggregated lists of hundreds of thousands of things, the list of encyclopedia topics now has almost 25% coverage...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AList_of_encyclopedia_topics
(and yes node, our new Pokemon fighting technique is unstoppable) (((flashback to mystery hunts of years past)))
What about Pokémon? Did we beat all the other encyclopedias at Pokémon? ;p
--node
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:52:06 -0400, Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
The de: Wikipedia recently underwent its second professional content test, this time overseen by Die Zeit, Germany's leading weekly newspaper. And friends, this "popular dispenser of knowledge on the Internet", this "desert of text", is HOT. While it is "completely without [multi]media" and "does not support complex search queries", it "stands in first place when it comes to text content," receiving top aggregate marks in three broad content categories -- Natural Science and Technology, Humanities and Social Science, and Culture -- matched only by Encarta Professional. Moreover, its "lead in current events is a mile wide".
This review was longer than the c't review -- seven terms in each of 21 fields -- but the article was shorter and less detailed. Die ZEIT was kind enough to extend the comparison to include both smaller German encyclopedias (Data Becker, aimed at a younger audience, and Universallexikon) and the English-language Britannica 2005 DVD. Britannica, she of the "legendary 32-volume set," took top marks in the sciences, but fell down when it came to sports and, most notably, current events. All the same, "the 165,000 well-sorted Web links alone are worth the price".
As to that perennial bugbear, editorial responsibility, the reviewers tackle it with bold eloquence:
"Those concerned with the quality of [Wikipedia] articles,because no established editorship takes responsibility for them, can rest at ease: we had most of the Wikipedia articles we examined judged separately by specialists in their respective fields, and they were thoroughly done. The texts still have gaps here and there, but they make up for it elsewhere with precise and detailed descriptions. And everyone can engage himself as a gap-filler: clicking on the link "edit this article" makes the reader an author."
It's enough to make me want to be a first-time author all over again.
Original article : http://www.zeit.de/2004/43/C-Enzyklop_8adien-Test (English translation available onli^B^B^B^B on request.)
-- +sj+ _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org