[Wikipedia-l] another supposedly authoritative web sites

[Mathias Schindler]

Dear Mr. Fasoldt, Dear Ms Stagnitta,

I read your article in the Post-Standard "Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia 
as source" at 
http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1093338972139211.xml, 
where you wrote:
	I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia.
	If you know of other supposedly authoritative Web
	sites that are untrustworthy, send a note to 	
	technology at syracuse.com and let me know about them.

Have you visited britannica.com?

http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html
> Disclaimer of Warranties
> 
> Neither Britannica, its affiliates, nor any third-party content
> providers or licensors makes any warranty whatsoever, including
> without limitation: that the operation of the Site will be
> uninterrupted or error-free; that defects will be corrected; that
> this Site, including the server that makes it available, is free of
> infection, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses, or other harmful components
> or other code that manifest contaminating or destructive properties;
> as to the results that may be obtained from use of the materials on
> the Site; or as to the accuracy, reliability, availability,
> suitability, quality, or operation of any information, software, or
> service provided on or accessible from the Site or as to any
> information, products, or services on the Internet in any way. In
> addition, Britannica does not assume any responsibility or risk for
> your use of the Internet.

> THE SITE AND ALL INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND OTHER CONTENT (INCLUDING 
> THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND CONTENT) INCLUDED IN OR 
> ACCESSIBLE FROM THIS SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES
>  OF ANY KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AND STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
> LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF TITLE AND NONINFRINGEMENT AND THE 
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 
> PURPOSE), ALL OF WHICH BRITANNICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS TO THE FULLEST 
> EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE 
> RISK.

Information at britannica.com can be edited by anyone who was given 
permission from the company. It might be a PhD who hasn't done anything 
else than writing about this specific topic. It might be someone else 
who feels competent. You never know.

Just compare 
http://www.britannica.com/eb/dailycontent?eu=422756#e%0Avent  "	Haile 
Selassie" with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie

At wikipedia, you can see a) who wrote b) when c) which part of the 
text, who changed it, who altered the order who removed parts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Haile+Selassie+of+Ethiopia&action=history&limit=500&offset=0

The authors, such as David Parker can be emailed or asked for 
clearification in doubt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Parker


You and Susan Stagnitta are perfectly right to advise people never to 
"trust" unreliable sources but I can't see a difference in this case 
between a "black box" company and a group of academics and skilled 
laymen who make the process of encyclopedic writing transparent.


Several wikipedians have created a document called "Making fun of 
Britannica" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Making_fun_of_Britannica, 
which contains a list of "errors" (in a broader sense). This does not 
change the level of trust towards Britannica.

If you spot a mistake in Britannica, what are the consequences? If it 
was in a book, there is no chance to correct it and the risk might be 
that a student relies on wrong information. She/He will not be able to 
get a refund from Britannica or even a discount on the new and 
(hopefully) corrected version.

Ms. Stagnitta said  "Anyone can change the content of an article in the 
Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content." Even if the 
first part of that sentence is correct, the second part does not 
describe the reality.

Just have a look at the procedures at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. It 
might be hard to get used to the fact that editorial review might be 
ad-hoc or it might be a constant effort. If an article was found fit for 
being a "Featured article", the process of improving that article does 
not stop.

I would like you to encourage you to ask Britannica if they feel that 
their content is "authoritative" in a sense that they will guarantee any 
given fact in their Encyclopedia. Ask them if they are able to attribute 
every sense to a specific author who can be contacted. Ask them if they 
will make their decision transparent, which lemma does get into the EB 
and which lemma does not get into it.

Yours,
Mathias Schindler
neubau at presroi.de

Ringelstr.50
60385 Frankfurt am Main
Germany