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:You still just don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
The algorithm does not care one bit about which link is more elite, classy, or respected, only about it's relation to other pages on the web. The fact that Wikipedia comes up as the number one result simply illustrates just how popular it is. Ironically, if Jorge read Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], he might know that.
It's interesting to see that while Britannica lacks a search result for PageRank, Wikipedia has a full article containing mathematical formulas and informative history and commentary about the algorithm. It also cites 16 references and an additional 6 in further reading. Which encyclopedia is inferior, again?
Now, certainly, Wikipedia should not be used as an authoritative source, but its PageRank alone demonstrates just how effective it has been at bringing knowledge to the masses. Wikipedia is almost always my first stop for a search because it often has a full article for a topic that I might otherwise spend minutes searching for on Google and will have many links to related topics and sources for the article if I want to dig deeper. Most of the time though, I'm not looking for a fully researched, academic quality paper, just a quick overview of the subject. I have a feeling that most people use it for the same reason.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry about the bold-font typo. That's pretty embarrassing to be pointing out your own typos in such a glaring fashion neomunk, dammit.
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: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: (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
Re:You still just don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia + Britannica == Info goodness! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Linkage creates the ranks (Score:5, Informative)
Google ranks Wikipedia articles higher than Britannica articles because Wikipedia.com is linked to more than Britannica.com.
In fact I would wager good money that Wikipedia.con is one of the top 5 linked to domains PERIOD, probably shortly after sites like cnn.com, myspace.com, facebook.com
Google doesn't just manually set it's rankings. They're set by the web. If Britannica wants higher rankings they need to get more people to link to them as an authority.
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 ;-).
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's not just links, but also how often people click from Google to the sites as well. If it's more popular, they go higher up. It just makes sense.
Re:Linkage creates the ranks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linkage creates the ranks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On top of that, the first Britannica article I looked at [britannica.com] had all kinds of errors. There are grammar errors, like an capitalized sentence. And factual errors, for example,
Three other "pillars of wisdom" are: not to use copyrighted material, [...]
Uh, wrong! It is only to use free content, which almost always is under copyright.
Britannica has no redeeming features compared to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not only cost-free but also speech-free, which is a major plus. Wikipedia articles are at least as accurate, more detailed, and more plentiful. The Britannica website is an unusable, wort
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
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can get the answers by asking slashdot too.
Tin = Sn = Atomic number 50 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin]
Google directly replies with 50 if you ask "what is the atomic number of tin"
Chickens = 300 eggs/year = 5.77 a week [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken]
Second result in Google for "how many eggs does a chicken lay in a week" contains the answer in the summary.
So, you can just ask Google these questions in natural language and it's not bad at all, quicker than scanning the Wikipedia article (esp. fo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you are correct but their problem they had is web created content was a classic example of a Disruptive innovation [wikipedia.org] for Britannica.
The problem Britannica had was that the early adopters of web enabled reference materials wanted things that Britannica users didn't or didn't care much about:
-- strong web connectivity
-- user created content
-- lots of specialized topics
-- a focus on geek culture issues
It didn't look like a threat at all until it became a major threat and
Re:Criticizing Google...that's just rich... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Criticizing Google...that's just rich... (Score:5, Funny)
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: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.
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.
Part of a borader trend (Score:2)
Wisdom of the crowd wins again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd [wikipedia.org]
Respected journals such as 'Nature' have (finally) acknowledged they they have published bogus or falsified claims in the past. I'm sure all here know the exmaples, plus of course patent research on prior art, FOSS... Huge pressure exists now for scientific, and other publications, to go this way. Which of course, raises other questions - like what's the 'final' version of 'the truth'?
Where the Britannica guys (may) have the e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect that while we grew up with the concept of "final" versions of thing, including truth, people who grow up with the Web as a reference will think of works as constantly evolving and never rooted. Truth, as it is, will always be revised to be (hopefully) more accurate, or occasoinally defaced.
Somehow this seems better than the authoratative books in the library which still say that dinosaurs were slow lizards and there is no water on mars.
Just checked Britannica.com - I wouldn't use it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I just checked Britannica.com and I can see another reason why people avoid it - it's terrible for access, where as Wikipedia is a nice and simple browsable site, much closer to a reference book with cross-reference links.
You hit the front page of Brittanica.com and you get two Flash movies (which I don't see because I use Gnash and have it set to pause on load and not play) and the side panel animates itself open. I decide to try and browse and I can't because the Flash is rendered above the "browse" pop-up layer. I do a search and there's no obvious search button, you just have to hit the Enter key and assume it'll work. Rather than giving you results or the page you want it gave me a quick "light box" animation before popping up another layer. Once I do get to the article it takes ages to load because of the adverts and a slow caching site (ironically) and then it proceeds to plaster its "pay for premium" advert over what I was just about to read! When you close the "pay for premium" layer it won't even go away - apparently details about "encyclopedia" are a premium topic and so it keeps popping back every few seconds!
With an interface like that there's no wonder people prefer Wikipedia given that it's "accurate enough" for most people's needs.
Re:Just checked Britannica.com - I wouldn't use it (Score:5, Informative)
I just did a quicky informal comparison. Searched Britannica for a few terms that I know Wikipedia has good articles about (because I read them recently). And I don't mean the pop-culture kinds of terms that Wikipedia is really great for (just try to find an article about, say, Bubba Ho-tep, in Britannica.)
ADO(ActiveX Data Objects): nothing at all. Much ado about Shakespeare, though.
OLE DB: nothing at all.
But it did suggest an article about "decibel" (the unit of measurement.) Ok, let's see what it's got: One brief paragraph. Textually describes the math (rather than giving an equation). Doesn't really explain at all _why_ people like decibel measurements. Mentions the confusing 10*log vs 20*log thing for powers and amplitudes, but doesn't deign to explain why it is that way.
Wikipedia: Lengthy, informative, and as far as I can see, completely accurate.
That is why people link to Wikipedia. And that is why it has a high Google rank.
Perhaps with more user contributions Britannica can catch up somewhat, but it'll be one hell of an uphill climb at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
But...but..Jorge's overpaid hip web designers and marketing committees said that flash is in and everyone loves it. His no-nonsense MBAs claim that teaser summaries will increase sales, but to never give a whole article away for free.
Some companies deserve to fold. This is your classic "we wont adopt to the new web-based market, we'll just keep doing what we've always done and use the web purely as a sales and marketing platform."
Shame really. If they would get re-do their annoying site and give more conte
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NoScript FTW!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, screw Britannica (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
And if I could edit my post I would replace "the Hitchhiker's Guide" by "Wikipedia".
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course in Wikipedia, the inscribed words are "BE BOLD!".
Simpsons already did it (Score:5, Informative)
Britannica is now out of date. The FLASH ADS on their site are abrasive and annoying; I will refuse to visit there site anymore due to this behaviour alone.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
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.
So if I change their page on Cold Dark Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
they're going to have an expert review it in 20 minutes?
What about a change to some obscure British scifi novel, like The Last Legionary? (By Douglas Hill)
This is never gonna work.
(* I have made changes to both of those pages in wikipedia, and though obscure topics, it wasn't long before further changes were made clarifying my own poorly written points.)
Re:So if I change their page on Cold Dark Matter (Score:4, Funny)
To Mortimer Adler, a great big "F*** you!" (Score:4, Funny)
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:To Mortimer Adler, a great big "F*** you!" (Score:4, Funny)
Britannica stopped being free (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the earlier day of the web encylopedia Americana was free. Britannica was a pay site. Then Britannica went free and it was dominant. But for most of this decade Britannica has not been a free site, which means links are low value.
Further:
1) Wikipedia has vastly more articles than Britannica. It isn't even close.
2) Wikipedia covers a wider range of topics.
3) Wikipedia articles are longer and more detailed
4) Wikipedia articles are much more web friendly with their "see also" web references.... In many ways playing the role yahoo used to play
5) Wikipedia articles offer history and talk pages which can provide tons of additional information
I can't see why Britannica would even think that in 2009 they should rank above Wikipedia. Wikipedia vs. Britannica discussions were interesting in 2005/6 and you could make a case. Today they aren't even close. Wikipedia functions reasonably well against specialized encyclopedias in their specialties.
I have always been a strong supporter of Britannica. I've bought lots of their products over the years and still use their encyclopedia on my laptop as a mobile solution. But they really aren't in the same league anymore as reference works. I think Columbia Encyclopedia [amazon.com] makes a fantastic one volume reference work but I wouldn't rate it not to Britannica. Quantity matters.
__________
Even assuming they started to get a flood of content I don't see how they would deal with it. Are they really ready to fact check say 1000 pages of new content a day? If they want to do what they are talking about they need to do something like partner with http://en.citizendium.org/ [citizendium.org]
Britannica could create a distinctive advantage for citizendium and at the same time Singer has put in place enough people to help with content additions.
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 t
Britannica's design needs work (Score:4, Interesting)
Just looking at Britannica.com's home page will reveal why they aren't ranked as well as Wikipedia. Upwards of 90% of the home page content is irrelevant to the majority of users, who are there because they want to look something up, not look at the video of the day, play with the "Featured" flash movie, or read about how Britannica is involved in Advocacy for Animals. This is an excellent example of web design molded around the needs of internal customers and requirements rather than the needs of the end user. The flash movies swoop in as they load, drawing attention away from the user's goal: the search box in the upper-middle of the screen, which itself is visually subservient to the arrogant "Premium Membership - Free Trial" button in the upper-right.
Both google and wikipedia did it right. Give the user a search box, a logo, and some language options. Trust them to explore your system on their own.
This is funny (Score:2, Interesting)
I interviewed there a couple months ago for a strategic product manager. Basically, they wanted someone to come in and help them figure out how to beat Wikipedia and reclaim the spot as reference provider of the world. It's pretty funny that this major strategic decision got made a few short months after they hired someone else (presumably). The real problem, and I told them this while interviewing, is that they are requiring people to pay for content, and wikipedia charges nothing, for "good-enough-for-mos
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.
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.
Brittanica should "use" Wikipedia (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest problem both are facing are the questions of "what should an enyclopedia be" or put, "how broad should a general-purpose encyclopedia be", and "to what audience should it be." For example, with a B-Tree Algorithm; should it be in here, and if so, to what level of detail should we go? For Wikipedia, having the ability to have near limitless time and space, articles can be as indepth as contributors wish, and given the near limitless time and space their encyclopedia can have intesive breadth. Brittanica has a cyclical publishing nature, high quality requirements (e.g. Wikipedia can "get away" with articles in development, incomplete, uncited, etc... for a while, where the prior can not), no easy way to remedy inaccuracies; in other words, very limited time and space.
However, Wikipedia is running into issues where certain moderators are under the impression that they too must "trim the fat" and delete articles who need a little TLC; to get the same respectability of Brittanica. The major problem is they are in two totally different situations. Brittanica is trying to be too much like Wikipedia (which might not be a bad thing) and Wikipedia (at least parts of it) are trying to be a little too much like Brittanica; when their delivery mechanisms, editorial/community structure, and ultimately purpose is completely different.
FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Funny)
Wikipedia isn't interested in truth, only facts.
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Funny)
[Citation needed]
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All kidding aside, Brittanica has a legitimate gripe - Wikipedia's height in the search rankings is due mostly to the fact that it's coded as a gigantic linkfarm.
The difference between Wikipedia and every other linkfarm out there, however, is that porn-peddler Wales managed to fob Wikipedia off as a "nonprofit" site, and convinced Google not to downgrade its linking weight according to the formula they use for all the other linkfarms out there. If not for this preferential treatment, wikipedia wouldn't show
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:5, Informative)
porn-peddler Wales managed to fob Wikipedia off as a "nonprofit" site, and convinced Google not to downgrade its linking weight according to the formula they use for all the other linkfarms out there.
o rly? citation needed pls.
Wikipedia gets its high PageRank from the millions of external sites linking to it that do not link to each other. It could easily get nil points from its internal links and still appear top of every search result.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia gets its high PageRank from the millions of external sites linking to it that do not link to each other. It could easily get nil points from its internal links and still appear top of every search result.
o rly? citation needed pls.
Otherwise it's two yabobs yammering at each other.
Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:4, Funny)
PageRank is well documented in various places. Follow the links from Wikipedia: that's what it's there for.
Re: (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: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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:FACTS, not "truth". (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently a bunch of wiki-trolls decided that anyone telling the truth about wikipedia is "trolling." Sad, but true.
Slashdot needs to get rid of the "-1 Troll" function altogether. If it gets modded up, great; if not, modding "troll" for mere disagreement (or merely becuase a particular troll got mod points that day) only hurts the system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:2)
Er, I think there's a good portion of overlap there :P
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously never heard of Gödel.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wooosh...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard 'truth' used in that context. I've always heard it to mean universal too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
-1, Didn't Read the Article
The changes won't appear on the site until they have been reviewed by someone paid by Britannica.
They must really be on the ropes. They're into full-on me-tooism, but obviously don't get what makes Wikipedia awesome at all.
-Peter
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Specialists editors.
Unless they plan to hire Stephen Hawking, i don't see how this is going to work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was very careful in my word choice. But maybe I should have said, "Top men. [youtube.com]"
-Peter
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
They aren't the only ones, one of the biggest selling points traditional encyclopedia's had was that they weren't wikipedia if they emulate it too closely they will disenfranchise that audience.
Anyone who is happy with the encyclopedic equivalent of lucky dip is already gushing about the 'awesomeness' of Wikipedia, they are not about to start helping elsewhere. Although perhaps some of the authors with genuine knowledge who have given up on Wikipedia's editfests might be interested in a more closely controlled equivalent.
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:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
They're going to look it up on Wikipedia.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
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: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.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course whats handy about wikipedia is that it almost always includes a good handful of links (and often meatspace citations as well) that makes it very easy to dig right into that additional research.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
I'm just waiting for schools be it junior, high or college to assign "wikipedia papers" as assignments. You could do it a variety of ways. I'd give each student a randomly generated article, then have them "grade it." Explain what's wrong with it in content, citations, grammar. Then I'd assign the student's to fix everything that they've ID'd as wrong with the given article. I'd then have students review and grade each others articles. You'd start of with existing known good articles and then you'd eventually have them build up to writing full articles on randomly assigned topics.
The educational value of this isn't about improving wikipedia at all. It's about educating students to ID poorly written/researched work, fix it, and write their own fairly decently researched "papers"/articles. Using wikipedia as a classroom tool though helps in several things. They actually learn through experience that not everything written in wikipedia is holy writ "right," and that other sources have the same sort of flaws. They then become used to improving stuff out of habit.
Long term it does end up improving wikipedia and it becomes more and more difficult to find grammer or factual mistakes.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Referencing to a non-encyclopedic source *and* Wikipedia is much better than the traditional source alone. Yes, the meatspace/research source is probably more trustworthy/up to date, but a second verification helps not just add to the reliability of a given statement, but has an effect of almost multiplying the reliability.
It's even arguable that
Re:Australia discovered in 1770... (Score:5, Funny)
according to the article. Wikipedia says 1606.
I daresay the aborigines would reckon the date a bit earlier...
Re: (Score:2)
Both the Wikipedia page and the Britannica page for Australia give credit to the Dutch for discovering it in 1606 but then it was ignored until 1770 when Cook laid claim to it for England. The article incorrectly gave credit to Cook and was not written by Britannica.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And let people edit this precious first post ?
Und lit paeple odet thes pressius frost poust ?
Thair. Hale fiksed.
Re: (Score:3)