[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

[geni]

On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, ???? <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
>>> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
>>> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
>>
>> He is probably thinking about this:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
>
> Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate
> errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia
> contained more errors-per-article than Britannica.


Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in
terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define
"encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that
works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias.

"Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia" is a great bit of rhetoric but it
is not consistent with any rational definition of encyclopedia. Of
course pre wikipedia I doubt anyone outside OED really worried about
the definition of encyclopedia.


-- 
geni