Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > 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 reviewed study that unfavorably compared > Britannica with Veropedia in terms of timeliness, scope and > accuracy would be quite devastating to Britannica, since > Veropedia also vets its contents. I suppose your point is since Veropedia fact-checks Wikipedia articles, but then makes no effort to update them, EB's timeliness would be poor if it lagged that effort. But there is a more traditional reference model, the almanac, where updates are on a one-year cycle. Part of the point I was trying to make is that there are these models between "instant" updating, which WP allows, and a long revision cycle traditional for encyclopedias (of the order of a decade).
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
