[WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
http://savageminds.org/2012/01/19/wikipedia-encyclopedias/ - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:34 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://savageminds.org/2012/01/19/wikipedia-encyclopedias/ Probably not the first and not the last. I don't find it that surprising. What he says there is excellent, though. Well worth reading. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
http://savageminds.org/2012/01/19/wikipedia-encyclopedias/ - d. Note that citing references is forbidden; proof Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
-Original Message- To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia http://savageminds.org/2012/01/19/wikipedia-encyclopedias/ - d. Note that citing references is forbidden; proof Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. Fred Encyclopedias give us no reason to believe their claims are true except the arbitrary authority of those who write them. They are the ultimate triumph of the authoritarian impulse in academics. Yes, but. Ultimately, a paper encyclopedia says This article is written by a qualified person (you can see his name) he has been chosen by an expert panel (here are their names) and his work will be reviewed by them. All of the above named people, and this encyclopedia, are willing to stake their professional reputations on the accuracy of this work and that we have credible quality control - whether that's enough for you, is up to you Wikipedia says this article is written by [[User:Warhammer2000]] and maybe some others. We've no idea who they are and what expertise they have. If you are lucky, it may have been checked over by many others (or no one at all), those people may be knowledgeable and unbiased (or not at all). No one whatsoever has staked anything on the accuracy of this article, and Wikpedia (while it tries) guarantees absolutely nothing (see our disclaimer). The only reason why anyone should take it seriously is that we try to say here are the sources, the best thing to do is check for yourself (The other reason for demanding sources is that it somewhat increases the chances of what Quality Control we do have, because it makes it easier for someone to review the article for accuracy.) Scott ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
On 20 January 2012 13:18, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: snip Yes, but. Ultimately, a paper encyclopedia says This article is written by a qualified person (you can see his name) he has been chosen by an expert panel (here are their names) and his work will be reviewed by them. All of the above named people, and this encyclopedia, are willing to stake their professional reputations on the accuracy of this work and that we have credible quality control - whether that's enough for you, is up to you This is the interesting (if now quite old) debate about traditional encyclopedias. Yes, Britannica or any other old-style commercial encyclopedia is keen to tell you about expert authors. Less keen, for example, to tell you when the article was written, as opposed to who wrote it; the expert not having a crystal ball rather affects the value of an article (say in science or technology). This was the starting point of Harvey Einbinder's The Myth of the Britannica (1964), which even Wikipedians might find rather unfair to EB (though the detail is fascinating - seems Einstein got the same $80 as anyone else for an article which allowed them to promote the work using his name ... wonder how hard he worked to write it). One should note that the market works to favour encyclopedias with a business model that allows later editions in which revision is kept to essentials. That's how it is: initiating a new high-quality print encyclopedia requires money up front, and the investment is paid off by having later editions that require substantially less writing bought in, rather than done in-house. I don't know this for a fact, but I doubt encyclopedia writers get a contract in which they are guaranteed the right to revise their work for each edition - implausible given the way publishers' minds works. Anyway we know that (for English speakers at least) market forces, given the barriers to entry, did not really drive quality right up. Einbinder pretty much gets that correct, as I recall. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
2012/1/20 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: http://savageminds.org/2012/01/19/wikipedia-encyclopedias/ - d. Note that citing references is forbidden; proof Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. Thank you very much for this link, David. I submitted an article for a four-volume paper encyclopedia recently. I shall definitely write in detail about my experience after it will be published in a few moths from now. In the meantime i can say that i was not told not to cite references. I just received a style guide for citing them, which is completely reasonable. So different paper encyclopedias are, well, different. The biggest difference was in the editorial process - deciding on the scope of the article, finding reviewers, proofreading, communicating with other writers etc. Since it's not over yet, i cannot write more about it, but the comparison between that and writing for Wikipedia would be hugely interesting. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: The biggest difference was in the editorial process - deciding on the scope of the article, finding reviewers, proofreading, communicating with other writers etc. Since it's not over yet, i cannot write more about it, but the comparison between that and writing for Wikipedia would be hugely interesting. I appreciate you can't say more right now, but can you say whether deciding on the scope of the article, finding reviewers, proofreading, communicating with other writers is referring to the process on Wikipedia or the process for the encyclopedia you are writing for? In my view, that process you describe is how writing on Wikipedia *should* work. Whether it does in practice or not is another matter. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
2012/1/20 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: The biggest difference was in the editorial process - deciding on the scope of the article, finding reviewers, proofreading, communicating with other writers etc. Since it's not over yet, i cannot write more about it, but the comparison between that and writing for Wikipedia would be hugely interesting. I appreciate you can't say more right now, but can you say whether deciding on the scope of the article, finding reviewers, proofreading, communicating with other writers is referring to the process on Wikipedia or the process for the encyclopedia you are writing for? In my view, that process you describe is how writing on Wikipedia *should* work. Whether it does in practice or not is another matter. It referes to both. These things are done both in Wikipedia and in the paper encyclopedia for which i wrote, but they are done entirely differently. Possibly they are so different that you would even say that on Wikipedia you can't use these words to describe them. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia
On 20 January 2012 14:10, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: This is the interesting (if now quite old) debate about traditional encyclopedias. Yes, Britannica or any other old-style commercial encyclopedia is keen to tell you about expert authors. Less keen, for example, to tell you when the article was written, as opposed to who wrote it; the expert not having a crystal ball rather affects the value of an article (say in science or technology). This was the starting point of Harvey Einbinder's The Myth of the Britannica (1964), which even Wikipedians might find rather unfair to EB (though the detail is fascinating - seems Einstein got the same $80 as anyone else for an article which allowed them to promote the work using his name ... wonder how hard he worked to write it). One should note that the market works to favour encyclopedias with a business model that allows later editions in which revision is kept to essentials. That's how it is: initiating a new high-quality print encyclopedia requires money up front, and the investment is paid off by having later editions that require substantially less writing bought in, rather than done in-house. I don't know this for a fact, but I doubt encyclopedia writers get a contract in which they are guaranteed the right to revise their work for each edition - implausible given the way publishers' minds works. Anyway we know that (for English speakers at least) market forces, given the barriers to entry, did not really drive quality right up. Einbinder pretty much gets that correct, as I recall. Not related to Britannica, but I came across a stunning omission from a printed encyclopedia a while back while editing Wikipedia... http://blog.tommorris.org/post/11947599442/encyclopedia-of-the-harlem-renaissance-vs-wikipedia -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
