Britannica Goes After Wikipedia and Google 385
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."
You still just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Well Jorge, first of all you take a swipe at Google for respecting the very encyclopedia that you yourself are tacitly acknowledging is at least somewhat superior (by imitating it). Then you show just how PROFOUNDLY out of touch you are by insisting that your changes will require editorial review (unless you're about to expand your editorial staff with thousands of new hires, you must not be expecting much participation).
Sorry, but this is just pathetic. If this is the best you can do online, just stick with what you do best (the printed page). Admittedly, Brittanica has always been a great source for academic quality articles, especially back when basic information was hard to come by. But this sort of half-hearted effort only highlights just how much you still don't "get it."
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Starting in High School we were taught never to do research off an encyclopedia. You use it to get a general idea about the topic which will help guide you to more appropriate sources for your research.
Britannica has been putting themselves on the high ground when they really weren't so high up. While Britannnica may have better researched articles, however Wikipedia for the most part does a good job at what encyclopedias are good for. A way to get a basic understanding of the topic so you then can go further in and do some real research.
Criticizing Google...that's just rich... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quote: "If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia," he said."Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?"
I don't know...maybe that's because a few hundred million people visit Wikipedia every year, and maybe because someone like me, who remembers when Lynx was the only web browser available, has never actually gone to Brittanica's website? Just maybe? Perhaps if they resolved their rectal-cranial inversion and made an accessible, easy to use, accurate product their PageRank might improve?
Bill
Rankings (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also a bit of a rant against Google for ranking Wikipedia above Britannica on most search terms.
Well, I guess that Google doesn't like to read teaser summaries that demand a paid subscription to read "premium content" any more than I do.
Re:Linkage creates the ranks (Score:5, Insightful)
Britannica is "full text for subscribers only" so you can understand just why Wikipedia is linked to so much. You don't have to write a paragraph to explain something any more, you just link to Wikipedia. That's why it's so highly ranked for many terms.
The worry of course is that high ranked sources of encyclopedic information are self sustaining. Why link anywhere else... do you have time to find anywhere better when you've got a post or article to write?
Maybe sometimes we should think more about our outgoing links, spreading the juice around more evenly... but then we should all drive more economically and eat better too ;-).
Brittanica will charge you money (Score:4, Insightful)
Out of curiosity I visited www.britannica.com and did a sample search. The result came up, but when I tried to scroll down the article, it faded away and an offer for a "Free Trial" wafted into view. I'm not sure how long the free trial is, but they want to charge you a nickel less than $12/month, or $70/year or bundled with Merriam-Webster for $85/year. I don't see how they expect a casual user to pay these prices when Wikipedia and Wiktionary only ask for donations.
I'll use the free services for most things. If one needs further verification, there are external references available.
Google Rankings (Score:3, Insightful)
There are valid reasons that Wikipedia appears before Britannica on Google search results.
One of them is that if users wanted to pay for their information, then they would have already taken out a subscription with somebody like Britannica. And then they would be using their paid subscription to Britannica by using their search engine and NOT searching for free information on Google.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The changes won't appear on the site until they have been reviewed by someone paid by Britannica.
So... skilled editors in the field of question, or your basic "anti-vandalization basic fact-check" paid editors? This is not entirely unlike the way Wikipedia can lock or semi-lock some pages where it's necessary. With all due respect to the ways wikipedia isn't that great, there's no way wikipedia or britannica could afford an editor staff to check every edit on something of wikipedia's size. I guess they have to limit the scope of their user input process greatly, until it's basicly what it's already - a collection of traditional encyclopedic material that is no match for the versatility of wikipedia. Despite the notability trolls, wikipedia carries so much information on so much more of greater and lesser, particularly lesser, importance.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Criticizing Google...that's just rich... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if they resolved their rectal-cranial inversion and made an accessible, easy to use, accurate product their PageRank might improve?
Also, if it was free instead of being a subscription based service, it might be more popular. It's an inescapable fact of economics. All other things being roughly equal, a free alternative will beat one that costs money... And for what "people" want, Wikipedia and Britannica are essentially equal. No one's looking for exhaustive scientific research on a subject. They're looking for the atomic number of Tin, or how many eggs a chicken lays per week. Who the fuck is going to pay $70 a year for that?
Here's hoping it works (Score:2, Insightful)
The rebellious air of Wikipedia's earlier years has dissipated, and editors no longer (widely) see the site as a competitor to Britannica. Both are used to provide information (yes, yes, Power Rangers Pokemon hur hur.) If one of them invents a way to do so better, hooray! Everybody wins.
Re:You still just don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, certainly, Wikipedia should not be used as an authoritative source
Nothing should be used as an authorative source.
That might be a slight exaggeration, but only a slight one.
Re:You still just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right.
Wikipedia is ranked higher because it is more linked throughout the web. But this is just another example where PageRank really is working: it's returning results that are most useful to the searcher.
For instance for "neutron" on Google, the first link is to Wikipedia. Britannica is nowhere on the first page. If you go directly to Britannica, they do indeed have an article on "neutron" [britannica.com]. However, it is a "premium topic" and keeps asking me to become a member. So when someone is searching for information about neutrons, what source is more useful: the one that immediately provides some information, with references; or the one that asks you to pay some money (or try the free trial...) in order to get full access, so that you can then figure out whether the information they have is useful or not... ?
The fact is that Wikipedia is more heavily linked because it is a more accessible, therefore more useful, source of information. Even if Britannica's content were superior, this would still be the case. The fact that Wikipedia is more expansive, more timely, and frequently more detailed/referenced than Britannica just makes the choice even clearer.
PageRank works. Wikipedia is overall a more useful source to the average web surfer, and thus deserves a much higher rank.
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly the problem, and one which the Britannica guy doesn't get. I'm only minimally interested in what some expert at Britannica thinks is the right answer, and a bunch of citations back to the print version of their encyclopedia as justification is useless.
It's the plethora of sources in the Wikipedia articles that are most valuable. I know the Wikipedia article is a cobbled together opinion that might be worthless and even wrong. So what? I can read the cited sources and form my own opinion, an option which Britannica doesn't really offer. They think they are their own authority and that their readers can end their investigation there because of the high quality. Sorry, that's stupid. Real research doesn't work that way. The days of "proof by authority" are rapidly fading. "[Citation needed]" is the way that real science has always worked, and most other subjects. You figure it out for yourself by reviewing what has already been done, and you back up your claims. It isn't perfect, but it is much better than no citations or "because we're Britannica!"
Even if Britannica does pop up in Google's search results I usually don't bother looking, because I know it probably won't tell me anything I don't already know. Meanwhile the Wikipedia article probably cites the most relevant and recent papers, and maybe even has a link to a PDF of it or another relevant website. I can dig deeper. The citations are weak in Britannica.
Google's ranking is appropriate because it reflects the fact that people link to the Wikipedia articles more, probably because those articles really are more useful as a starting point for research.
Re:You still just don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they don't get it, they reserve that realisation for the day they are out of a job. When I was a kid, I often looked in my father's copy of Britannica, and I really do respect what they have created, but, you know, times have changed. Thinking that they haven't is just foolish.
To quote the article:
"It's very much used by many people because it covers many topics and it's the No.1 search result on Google. It's not necessarily that people go to Wikipedia."
Hmm, Ridiculous. I often just bypass google and go to Wikipedia directly. The only reason that I sometimes use google for reaching wikipedia articles is that the search engine of wikipedia itself is way too strict.
I think Britannica will go, one way or another. I think maybe their only hope is to work together with wikipedia, in assisting them to become better reviewed. I don't really have an answer for the financial picture but I think a nonprofit organization might be the only way.
Re:Linkage creates the ranks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Insightful)
I also looked it up on the Britannica website but it told me it was premium content and that I needed to sign up to view it (or at least not get annoying popups all the time).
Which is another reason (IMO)) why Wikipedia should appear higher than Britannica.
The issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue here is that the "authoritative" (emphasis on the quotation marks) status of Wikipedia as THE place to go for information in the sense that it will in time be generally accurate. If Britannica is successful, Wikipedia's status will be diluted. Case in point: probably 90% or more of Slashdot users use Google for general web searches, while going to Wikipedia for encyclopaedia research, IMDB for movie research, Sourceforge for open source product research, etc.... We know better than to put up with a MSN or Yahoo query (unless the Google search came up unsatisfactory). If the Wikipedia results are unsatisfactory, we research and add to the article, making it more complete and authoritative. Are we going to feel compelled to verify that Britannica is correct as well? (keep in mind that Britannica would never have allowed free access, let alone editable content if it weren't for the success of Wikipedia). Do we really care that MSN and Yahoo perform poorly for most queries other than perhaps looking up the latest Katy Perry video or editorial content? This, of course, comes with a massive theoretical cost to freedom by concentrating the power with a small number of authorities (Google and Wikipedia, for example) but with the benefit of optimizing accuracy and reducing time required to "authoritate" the web.
Re:You still just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
As a friend of mine put it: "Even if Wikipedia is only right 80% of the time, that's a lot more right than we need to get a satisfying answer to why the Star Trek Experience in Vegas closed down."
Re:Criticizing Google...that's just rich... (Score:5, Insightful)
What? you can read Britannica on the web? I had no idea, I've never stumbled on a Britannica link, never, not even in Google.
But then again, this new information is useless anyway.
Google doesnt do it. WE do it, as users. (Score:5, Insightful)
it doesnt matter that wikipedia's content can be contested, objectionable, at times unreliable for some controversial subjects - it gives an easy, neat, formatted, quick glance presentation to convey what you are talking about to the person you are linking it to. moreover, the articles that are created with solid references and common knowledge cant be contested, so there isnt too much difference in linking "Anita Ward" or "French-Indian Wars" wiki pages to someone to give out a broad info, and give them a place to start with. not to mention that stuff that doesnt make into britannica editions because 'editors' would find too controversial or distasteful for their political/financial alignment, can easily be found in wikipedia in all their bare truth.
sorry britannica. you are proprietary technology. this is the 21st century of participation and interactivity. wikipedia is participative, and interactive. you are way behind. its good to see you trying to adopt, but its annoying to see that you people rant about stuff that are better than you in many respects. lighten up, its the century of the people. people are the custodians of information now, not a minority literate elite.
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm, but isn't the fact that Wikipedia actually is a pretty good source for very many things people are searching for on Google important? That's the difference between it and other linkfarms - I (as I'm sure is the case with many others) am very frequently happy to follow a link to Wikipedia, where I find the information I'm looking for. The same isn't true for other, lazier sites.
And isn't Google's aim to get you to the information you're looking for?
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that Wikipedia's own search engine sucks (especially when I am unable to spell unfamiliar terms), yes. I find the Google/Wikipedia combo to be invaluable in finding what I am seeking to learn.
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:4, Insightful)
You forget the Britannica article is written by one author (who may know the subject, but will be biased to some degree) and one editor who probably will not know the subject well ... they too will cite references (but these are not available online) but these will be the ones the single author picked and so will (unsurprisingly) agree ....
Wikipedia the article could be biased, could be badly cited, but having large numbers of authors and editors is actually less likely to be biased?
Britannica's reputation is not as great as they think and it is unlikely that anyone who actually knows the subject would ever read the britannica article?
I tend to use wikipedia like most other people - as a introduction to a subject or as a way of finding other sources to look in depth, the fact that Google puts it near the top of the list is a good thing ...
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the quality of your post, I feel you provide a good example of the level of competence required to call wikipedia good and an excellent insight into why preview is least valued by those who most need it.
Teacher's shouldn't accept wikipedia as a source, for the same reasons they shouldn't accept other Encyclopedias. An encyclopedias entire point is to act as a reference, fine for casual research but only to be used as a starting point in finding academic material.
Re:Brittanica will charge you money (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Out of all the whining in the article, not once is in mentioned that Britannica charges subscription. Sure, they have free access for a small amount. But you almost inevitably reach a "subscribe now" page within a couple of clicks in any normal use.
If I was a paid subscriber of Britannica I would be entering and searching site directly, ensuring I got my money's worth. I wouldn't be accessing it via Google. So the root of their complaint is that they want Google to pull in non-subscribers for them, indexing pages are not available to the browser unless they pay. And now they think it's a cool idea to get those same subscribers to write the article as well!
Well I suppose they get full marks for bare faced nerve.
Why would anyone care? (Score:2, Insightful)
Britannica rocks Wikipedia rocks too (Score:1, Insightful)
There is also a bit of a rant against Google for ranking Wikipedia above Britannica on most search terms.
Well what do they expect? Britannica was awesome back in the day but IMHO they dumbed it down and made each volume a third of the thickness that it used to be. Then Wikipedia appears one day and IMHO it covers more topics than Britannica even though the info in Britannica is supposedly more correct, or at least thats' what they say. At least with, Wikipedia you can edit and fix it and with Britannica you can't at least until now. I think Britannica is making a smart move now and it would be a even smarter move to pull in material from their old editions, back when each volume was as thick as the huge dictionary you find in the centre of the library. They should not promise to peer reviewed in it 20 minutes. Instead submissions should go in a queue and they should have smart dudes checking them one by one. Because so many people will make contributions they're staff will be overfloodded with submissions.
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to see Google treat wikipedia like they treat everyone else. Won't happen, but it would mean Google would have more meaningful search results.
Some analysts have claimed that Google would have much less meaningful results if Wikipedia were treated like everyone else:
Then Google had a brainwave. [theregister.co.uk] Realizing that few searchers explore beyond the top three results, it decided to give a powerful boost to Wikipedia. Nevermind the 6 billion junk pages - Google need only ensure users clicked on the two million Wikipedia entries. As a consequence, Wikipedia entries rose to the top of the rankings. During 2006, Wikipedia entries eclipsed all others, and typically feature in the top three SERPs, or the top search result.
I don't know enough about Google's search to judge, but it seems likely that Google would want to favor Wikipedia entries to increase the relevance of search results, in the face of so many challenges from bots, junk pages, cybersquatters, link farms, etc.
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.
Wikipedia + Britannica == Info goodness! (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:3, Insightful)
It's up to Google to decide if they want to "honor" the nofollow tag on any domain. They could easily choose not to if they thought they knew better than Wikipedia.
Re:You still just don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Well Jorge, first of all you take a swipe at Google for respecting the very encyclopedia that you yourself are tacitly acknowledging is at least somewhat superior (by imitating it). Then you show just how PROFOUNDLY out of touch you are by insisting that your changes will require editorial review (unless you're about to expand your editorial staff with thousands of new hires, you must not be expecting much participation).
Bingo! They aren't expecting much participation. When you contribute to Wikipedia you're contributing to a freely accessible resource run by a non-profit. People can justify spending time improving such an animal. Contrast this with Britannica which, apart from behaving badly in this instance, charges for access and suddenly the prospect of contributing to Britannica means I've gone from contributing to the public good to contributing to some jackass company's revenue. One that belittles the contribution no less.