Britannica Goes After Wikipedia and Google

kzieli writes "Britannica is going to allow viewers to edit articles, with changes to be reviewed by editors within 20 minutes. There is also a bit of a rant against Google for ranking Wikipedia above Britannica on most search terms."

FACTS, not "truth".

[computersareevil]

Wikipedia isn't interested in truth, only facts.

Re:Huh?

[Xtense]

Specialists editors.

Unless they plan to hire Stephen Hawking, i don't see how this is going to work.

Re:FACTS, not "truth".

[value_added]

[Citation needed]

Well, screw Britannica

[Yvan256]

In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, the Hitchhiker's Guide has already supplanted the great Encyclopaedia Britannica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects.

First, it is slightly cheaper; and second, it has the words DON'T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.

Re:Huh?

[pete-classic]

I was very careful in my word choice. But maybe I should have said, "Top men. [youtube.com]"

-Peter

Re:Australia discovered in 1770...

[Dun Malg]

according to the article. Wikipedia says 1606.

I daresay the aborigines would reckon the date a bit earlier...

To Mortimer Adler, a great big "F*** you!"

[DoofusOfDeath]

Mortimer Adler is the author of numerous books such as, "How to Read a Book", and I believe he was once an editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Alas, despite writing many good books, Adler was maddeningly patronizing towards his readers. For Britannica to let the great unwashed masses actually modify one of his sacred texts almost makes me giddy.

Re:NoScript FTW!!!

[elrous0]

I picture a Britannica HQ populated by a bunch of old farts complaining about the "kids and their damned internets." When they decided to develop an online version, they probably just went with the first developer who could impress them with some cheap Flash and a lot of impressive-sounding jargon. "That guy really knows his internets," was no doubt overheard at the end of his presentation.

Re:Criticizing Google...that's just rich...

[Yvanhoe]

If I were the CEO of Britannica, I would be ashamed to have a website full of ads and nag screen

Re:Huh?

[lastchance_000]

They're going to look it up on Wikipedia.

Re:Criticizing Google...that's just rich...

[geminidomino]

If I were the CEO of Britannica, I would be ashamed to have a website full of ads and nag screen

If you are capable of feeling shame, you'll never be a CEO.

Re:FACTS, not "truth".

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, let the internets help you out [wikipedia.org].

Re:Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

farward? dilligently? professionaly?

Good job.

Re:Huh?

[David Gerard]

You realise of course that even though there isn't a formal expert review process at Wikipedia, the project is *loaded* with experts. You can barely move without tripping over a Ph.D. Hence Wikipedia's other name, "Unemployed Ph.D Death Match."

Re:Huh?

[mysticgoat]

I would wonder even HOW they plan to review changes. Aside from the sheer volume issue... there is also the question of exactly HOW they can practically review technical changes for accuracy, without a wide variety of specialists on staff.

Wikipedia. Cross check with Google. Jeesh, this kind of research isn't rocket surgery any more.

Re:To Mortimer Adler, a great big "F*** you!"

[dwandy]

not knowing who he was, I googled the name ... my first page hit? of course! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Will slastdot follow Britannica

[Forge]

And let people edit this precious first post ?

Und lit paeple odet thes pressius frost poust ?

Thair. Hale fiksed.

Re:FACTS, not "truth".

[gzipped_tar]

Truth = facts, dumbass.

Being an anonymous coward I doubt that you're nothing more than a troll, but truth != facts.

Don't panic. Your fellow AC is using the assignment operator "=" rather than the equality operator "==". I guess he/she/it simply meant "let Truth be facts" :)

Re:FACTS, not "truth".

[philspear]

You can tell the truth but still be wrong.

This has been "High school logic." Tune in next week for an in-depth look at why correlation is NOT causation!

Re:Huh?

[mounthood]

(Good morning editors, each of you will be reviewing 14,850 edits in the next 8 hours)

Easy, nobody will actually use their site.

Re:FACTS, not "truth".

[hobbit]

PageRank is well documented in various places. Follow the links from Wikipedia: that's what it's there for.

Re:So if I change their page on Cold Dark Matter

[TheDugong]

Reminds me of when I linked Cretinism to Creationism in Conservapedia. The discussion amongst the admins was hillarious... Admin 1: "No, I think the editor just wanted to make it easier for people who mistyped" Admin 2: Wikipedia link to Cretinism. Admin 1: "Oh my" Ban ban ban

Re:FACTS, not "truth".

[mqduck]

I personally like seeing Wikipedia at the top of Google's search because I think Wikipedia helps to break the hegemony of academia on the dissemination of knowledge. Even with all its flaws, Wikipedia is more democratic than any other encyclopedia and has changed the way information is shared around the world.

Stephen Colbert, is that you?

Re:You still just don't get it

[neomunk]

Sorry about the bold-font typo. That's pretty embarrassing to be pointing out your own typos in such a glaring fashion neomunk, dammit.