[Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon

[John at Darkstar]

I've been wondering if we could identify different users somehow, what
kind of role they had in writing of the article - especially who did the
research and who did the writing, and what kind of trust (reputation)
they have.

The academic emphasis is something they brag loudly about, but it seems
academia more and more uses Wikipedia anyhow. ;) It is also interesting
how SNL want to be used as a primary source of information, while we
says no one should use an encyclopedia as a primary source for information.

I'm not sure what you mean about "our minus point number two".

John

Andre Engels skrev:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:17 AM, John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no> wrote:
>> The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons
>> between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1]
>> and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According to
>> Aftenposten the new edition will cost Kunskapsforlaget and their owners
>> Aschehoug og Gyldendal NOK 25 mill over the next 3 years, approx USD 3.6
>> mill.[3]
> 
> The first comparison I find not so good; the points he mentions are
> indeed points where Wikipedia is better, they are not the main points
> I would judge an encyclopedia by. The second one looks much better,
> giving good points of comparison, and stating where one or the other
> is better. The points that are mentioned are (using a machine
> translation to read the articles):
> 
> Wikipedia better:
> * easier to use
> * better usage of the possibilities of HTML: tables, images
> * more interlinking
> * SNL uses two different sources by just putting them on the same
> page, which means things are told double
> * more up-to-date
> * better on popular culture subjects and current events
> * more open to (quick) improvements
> 
> SNL better:
> * more academic emphasis
> * authors are identified
> * Wikipedia articles are more uneven in both language and content
> 
> 
> In general a nice list, but I do also want to point at our minus point
> number two - I really think it is worthwhile to see what can be done
> about it. Of course the same holds for the other two, but those are
> much harder to improve in a general manner (but we should all look at
> improving them at the page level).
>