Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Wikipedia More Accurate Than Britannica?
In an interesting twist that's sure to set some tenured academics a grumblin', the hive of minds behind Wikipedia have worked up a list of errors in 'Encyclopedia Britannica' that Wikipedia, naturally, has correct. There are 50-odd entries in the list, ranging from a bogus birth date for Pink Floyd's Roger Waters to more scientific matters, like incorrectly stating that the solid version of nitroglycerin is more sensitive to jostling than the liquid. This is an unofficial follow-up to the controversial 'Nature' article which found Wikipedia was nearly as accurate as Britannica, an article which elicited a vehement response from the slighted publication (PDF). It seems this intellectual spat is bound to go on for a number of years to come ... somewhat at odds with the nature of the Wikipedia organization, which purports to be all about teamwork and open discussion.
From Slashdot and Wikipedia
Related Links:
- Is Videogame Addiction a Psychiatric Disorder?
- Robot Plays MC at Wedding
- Wireless Electricity = WiTricity
16 Grammys Looks That Weren't Working
Whitney Houston Autopsy: Cause of Death Determined?
Worst Movie Mistakes: Date Night Edition (PHOTOS)
Whitney Houston, Bobbi Kristina: Late Singer's Daughter Hospitalized
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
PHOTOS: President Obama's Kissing Technique
Jennifer Hudson Whitney Tribute: Grammy President Reveals Why Singer Was Chosen for Musical Memorial
Grammy 2012 Winners' List: Adele Sweeps Music's Biggest Night
How Hattie Lost 300 Pounds: 'I Was Ready To Do Whatever It Took To Survive'
Whitney Houston Dead: Stars React to Legend's Sudden Death
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
Matt Bomer Comes Out As Gay
5-Hour Energy: A Success Equal Parts Caffeine, Chemistry and Meditation
People With Easy-To-Pronounce Names More Likely To Succeed, Study Says
Grammy Awards 2012: The Best & Worst Of The Red Carpet!
Katy Perry Grammy Performance 2012: Did the Diva Diss Her Ex-Hubby With Revealing New Song?
Photos Of Dead Lacrosse Player's Injured Body Shown To Jury
12 Grammys Stars Who Gave Good Style
The Top 10 Slacker Colleges
15 Funny Valentine's Day Cards
Mystery Disease Kills Thousands
WATCH: 25 Million Tons Of Japan Tsunami Debris Headed Directly Our Way
Oprah Under Fire For Controversial Tweet
PHOTOS: Thank God For Grown-Up Glamour
JUNGLE SURVIVAL: Marines Drink Snake Blood, Eat Insects
Remembering The People's Ballerina
New Clues, Details Emerge In Powell Case
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
PHOTOS: Kate Spends Valentine's Day Solo!
Taylor Swift Does Great Depression Chic
PHOTOS: Beautiful Scars
15 Funny Valentine's Day Quotes
Comments
3
Subscribe to commentsMarcia Lynn NeilFeb 27th 2008 2:37PM
Yes, there is a network that will block posts made to Wikipedia if the content offered does not match their belief systems or experience. Worse, it is an occult network, where other people's mere thoughts are typed into the website. It's their member right to block 'log in' posts, but such blocking should not be permanent.
BonnieJun 26th 2009 11:52AM
The very nature of a site where almost anyone can add information causes it to be less authoritative than a site that is controlled by a board of editors and written by scholars. Let's just use our heads here. A quick overview of a topic can be found in Wikipedia, and there are more topics there that don't fit into the scope of an encyclopedia--that's the value I see in it. As for accuracy, I will never trust it after seeing how easily someone can go in and change it.
david hillJul 29th 2007 6:09PM
Up to 12 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, 'Jimbo's second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is totally at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails is now posted on our website within our scientific discovery newsletter - http://www.thewif.org.uk/version2/nlett/class/main0.html. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only on hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with 'Jimbo' and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to 'Jimbo's' opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball homey and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland