[WikiEN-l] In 2006, Wikipedia started to exist (according to the world of Britannica)

[maru dubshinki]

On 8/6/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I just came across http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9433599, which
> is the lead section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about
> wikipedia. There is also one about wikis in general:
> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9404276.
>
> These articles appear to be taken from the current revision of the EB
> itself, not the yearbook or any other of these sources (on this web
> site, you can never be sure).
>
> EB is now the second (or third, depending on how you count)
> encyclopedia to mention wikipedia. The Columbia Encyclopedia has one
> and the 21st edition of the Brockhaus encyclopedia (in German).
>
> I don't have full access to the EB article from here and I am very
> curious about its accuracy :)
>
> Fun fact: Last time I checked, Brockhaus refused to call Wikipedia an
> encyclopedia.
>
> Mathias

Well, EB is not afraid to call us an Encyclopedia, although there is
an amusing focus on Seigenthaler, and some things which I think may be
factually incorrect.

For example:
"The author of this information could not be identified, since all
that is known about contributors is their computers' IP, or Internet
protocol, addresses (many of which are randomly generated each time a
user goes online). (The contributor later confessed and apologized,
saying that he wrote the false information as a joke.)"

Maybe it is me, but this looks like a contradiction- if the author
could not be identified (we all know he could and was) then how could
he later apologize? Quite aside, IPs are not randomly generated...

Or:
Wikipedia administrators now have the power to block particular IP
addresses—a power they used in 2006 after it was found that staff
members of some U.S. congressional representatives had altered
articles to eliminate unfavourable information. Articles on political
subjects have become the greatest test of Wikipedia's principle of
neutrality."

Here I'm not sure whether he is implying or stating that admins only
got the power to block IPs and users *after* the Seigenthaler affair
or just before the House of Representatives scandal. Either way, he's
wrong: IP blocks were implemented years and years ago; didn't Jimmy
ban a user in the first year?

There are other more minor points, like for example, in the following
where he uses "anonymous", it should really be pseudonymous:

"These observers point out that identifiable individuals are far
easier to hold accountable for mistakes, bias, and bad writing than is
a community of anonymous volunteers, but other observers respond that
it is not entirely clear if there is a substantial difference."

And there are some odd passages, where it could be read as damning or
praising Wikipedia:

"Regardless of such controversies—perhaps in part because of
them—Wikipedia has become a model of what the collaborative Internet
community can and cannot do."

All in all, a decent article. Newspapers usually do a lot worse, FWIW.

~maru