|
|
Posted by Nik Coughlin on 05/08/06 23:43
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Greg N. wrote:
>
>> An example of solid content is http://wikipedia.org
>
> Ehem, Wikipedia is by definition not solid. It is by definition a site
> that can be edited at any moment by anyone. In practice it isn't
> really that "democratic", but it surely is highly mutable and mostly
> in unpredictable ways, and you won't even know who wrote or edited its
> content.
Not their real names, but a page's history shows the authors, many of whom
do use their real names.
>It surely gives the _impression_ of a good encyclopedia by
> its appearance.
Wikipedia has a higher number of errors than Britannica, but it also has
considerably longer articles. The error to wordcount ratio is lower than
Britannica. The articles in Wikipedia are however generally not as well
structured and some are quite poorly written. But overall Wikipedia is
bloody good, all things considered.
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/94dro
Wikipedia survives research test
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|