On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
G'day folks,
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and-google/2009/01/22/1232471469973.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
In a move to take on Wikipedia, the
Wikipedia only lives of donations and has no ads. Britannica lives of
selling huge volumes and has its page full of ads...
--
Alvaro
On 04-02-2009, at 20:44, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
G'day folks,
From
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:
I think in fact that the headline is misleading. This isn't really
a case of Britannica taking on Wikipedia. It is more like they
may have seen Veropedia in their rear view mirror, and gotten
scared. A peer
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Like I say, this story itself may be an urban myth, and certainly
even if it happened to be in fact true, it would reference a very
early edition of Britannica, perhaps even one of the very first
editions. I am sure even their editorial
With respect intended, it may be simpler than that. When a patient with
advanced cancer changes his diet, it's seldom because he recently learned he
also has a cholesterol problem.
*Britannica's* business plan for generations could rely on a steady stream
of institutional purchases. From
Durova wrote:
Their main advantage in the current market is that their content is vetted.
Question is whether they can afford the staff to keep up with submissions,
and whether that value added is worth the price they charge for it. The
market seems to be saying no. And if they walk away
EB trades size for reliability. They may get a fact wrong here and there or
be slightly out of date, but they aren't going to publish absolute hoaxes
and they're relatively family-friendly.
Whether consciously or by default, EB has opted for a niche market. Where
can they reposition themselves
] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica
2.0
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/2009 sainto...@telus.net writes
I had sent him a scathing email denigrating him for not allowing
direct user edits.
For some time, they allowed you to *email* them additions and
corrections
...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica
2.0
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/2009 sainto...@telus.net writes
I had sent him a scathing email
Durova wrote:
Their main advantage in the current market is that their content is vetted.
Question is whether they can afford the staff to keep up with submissions,
and whether that value added is worth the price they charge for it. The
market seems to be saying no. And if they walk away
Gwern Branwen wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2009 larsen.thoma...@gmail.com writes:
What evidence do you have that an encyclopedia must be free?
Society has existed for a few thousand years without a free encyclopedia.
A statement trivially true. Society has also existed for a few
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
For instance that simian society has always had ways
of restricting access to intellectual property, not
limited to intentional obfuscation, initiatory methods
of knowledge access, and going all the way to the level
of intentionally making the information
David Goodman wrote:
The combination of user generated content, user-based editorial
control, and free content is our characteristic. That doesn't mean
it's the best way for all purposes, or even that it will always be us
that implements it best.
It is perfectly possible that if there were
In a message dated 1/29/2009 10:31:33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
I had sent him a scathing email denigrating him for not allowing direct
user
edits.
For some time, they allowed you to *email* them additions and corrections,
and I pointed out how
the wub wrote:
Also fom the article:
He said the encyclopedia had set a benchmark of a 20-minute
turnaround to update the site with user-submitted edits to existing
articles
That'll probably be faster than us once flagged revisions is switched
on (compare with the German expeiment, where
On 29/01/2009, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
So what if it takes 3 weeks? So what if there are backlogs? Even
accepting the premise that EB can maintain such a breakneck speed,
whoever defined this as a race to do things more quickly?
Well, they have less users than us. They have
2009/1/29 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
So what if it takes 3 weeks? So what if there are backlogs? Even
accepting the premise that EB can maintain such a breakneck speed,
whoever defined this as a race to do things more quickly?
Our readers and our content writers. Speed of updates is a
Keith Old wrote:
In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting
the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be
rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/2009 sainto...@telus.net writes
I had sent him a scathing email denigrating him for not allowing direct
user edits.
For some time, they allowed you to *email* them additions and corrections,
and I pointed out how ridiculously last
geni wrote:
2009/1/29 Ray Saintonge:
So what if it takes 3 weeks? So what if there are backlogs? Even
accepting the premise that EB can maintain such a breakneck speed,
whoever defined this as a race to do things more quickly?
Our readers and our content writers. Speed of updates is
2009/1/29 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Speed of updates may be a factor for current events, but I see nothing
to convince me that EB wants to enter that field. Nor do I see them as
competitors to upload the latest plot line of Desperate Housewives as
soon as it has aired.
Has there
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0
Keith Old wrote:
New features enabling the inclusion of this user
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/2009 sainto...@telus.net
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/2009 sainto...@telus.net writes
I had sent him a scathing email denigrating him for not allowing
direct user edits.
For some time
I think Brittanica's model *could* have worked if Wikipedia hadn't
appeared on the scene.
I, revealing that I am an old fart, ( as if you couldn't tell by my
cantankerous moods), bought the complete Brittanica when I was just a
pup (more or less) and paid about $900 for it them.
(To you brits
David Gerard wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/22/1336241
I found this anonymous Slashdot comment interesting:
===
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
Mark wrote: -Even if they did, I'd find Wikipedia more useful for
many things, such
as getting overviews of fields that have multiple competing viewpoints,
and pointers into the literature for further research. But I'd probably
read Britannica, too, whereas currently I don't really.-
Oh yeah,
the wub wrote
Also fom the article:
He said the encyclopedia had set a benchmark of a 20-minute
turnaround to update the site with user-submitted edits to existing
articles
That'll probably be faster than us once flagged revisions is switched
on (compare with the German expeiment, where
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
the wub wrote
Also from the article:
Re-quoting link to article (more comments below):
2009/1/22 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com:
In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting
the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/22/1336241
I found this anonymous Slashdot comment
Do we know how many *words* Wikipedia is?
Current estimate on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes is
1,178,620,320 words (1.2 billion), although that's based on a words
per article count from October 2006 when the statistics program
exploded.
How many *articles* Britannica
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:20 AM, wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkl4kr4ACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oKbEQCcC5i02/SXa2EgSuncpVydj+h2
9jkAniovyrPUW4o0MW5Xl1kCvy50afRD
=hWcx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
In a
G'day folks,
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and-google/2009/01/22/1232471469973.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting
the hoi polloi to edit, enhance
In a message dated 1/21/2009 8:04:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
keith...@gmail.com writes:
New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be
rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24 hours, *
Britannica's* president, Jorge Cauz, said in an interview
Well, they can do what they like. But because of that, Wikipedia will remain
more popular and wider in scope and depth than Brittanica 2.0.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2009 8:04:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
keith...@gmail.com writes:
New
In a message dated 1/21/2009 9:01:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedianmarl...@gmail.com writes:
Well, they can do what they like. But because of that, Wikipedia will remain
more popular and wider in scope and depth than Brittanica 2.0.
What they are saying *now* is that
There are three things _any_ encyclopedia must be:
* free—as in the sense of freedom, not necessarily in the sense of beer;
* reliable—in other words, accurate, coherent, and neutral; and
* global—that is, multilingual and written by a diverse, broad group of people.
Britannica might be
In a message dated 1/21/2009 9:17:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thoma...@gmail.com writes:
* free—as in the sense of freedom, not necessarily in the sense of beer;
* reliable—in other words, accurate, coherent, and neutral; and
* global—that is, multilingual and written by a diverse,
I think Thomas there is some room for an encyclopedia which is written
entirely by experts, and has no room for the input of commoners.
However with Wikipedia online, that room isn't the internet.
But when you buy a print encyclopedia like Encyclopedia of Creepy Places to
Visit... you
Hi Will,
On 1/22/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I think Thomas there is some room for an encyclopedia which is written
entirely by experts, and has no room for the input of commoners.
However with Wikipedia online, that room isn't the internet.
But when you buy a print
Yes it's nice to be the king.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Larsen larsen.thoma...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 9:39 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0
Hi Will,
On 1/22/09, wjhon...@aol.com
41 matches
Mail list logo
