Stan Shebs wrote:
Jimbo is being a little too modest when he says that
scholars haven't
picked articles for fact-checking - we have a number of scholars and
other authorities who are WPers, the articles in their areas get pretty
thoroughly fact-checked, and they watch those articles closely to see
that new errors don't get in. The only thing that hasn't happened yet
is a large-scale systematic review.
Me? Modest? Never. ;-)
The actual question was about a systematic review; I did emphasize
exactly what you did -- it's false to assume that Wikipedians aren't
scholars and authorities, many of us are, and lots of quality review
and comparisons to other reference works goes on all the time.
source, anybody can compare the two. I have no
personal experience of
aircraft carriers, but I can make sure a launching date matches what
the Royal Navy says it is.
That's an excellent example.
The Britannica guy should read a little more Linux
history, so he
doesn't embarass himself by saying exactly the same things that
Microsoft said about Linux years ago.
There's a huge difference, too, between Microsoft and Britannica.
With software, there are network externalities and "lock-in", and it
is taking time for free alternatives to overcome that. But Britannica
enjoys no such natural advantages -- it's quite easy for anyone to
"switch" which encyclopedia they use, as opposed to being a slight
nuisance (or worse) to "switch" operating systems.
Of course, we, too, enjoy no such "lock-in" -- so if proprietary
publishers figure out a way to produce content as comprehensive as
ours, as accurate as ours, and at a lower cost, then they will
outcompete us.
But, fat chance of that.
--Jimbo