« Feeds vs Attention, or Data vs Behaviour? | Main | Wikipedia v Britannica: putting it in perspective »

Prole Art Threat

"Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.- CNET"

It'll be interesting to read Nicholas Carr's take on this, given past criticisms of the wiki:

"The rift comes at a time when the quality of the encyclopedia, which has long been held up as an example of the Internet's ability to harness "collective intelligence," is under debate (a debate set off by a critical post of mine earlier this month)." - Nicholas Carr

There's no word from him yet. But it's interesting to wonder if what is essentially a statistical approach (Wikipedia) can compete with the structured semantic one (Brittanica). Maybe it can for relatively large numbers of contributors.

Let's leave the last word to Samuel Johnson circa 1753:

"I saw that one enquiry only gave occasion to another, that book referred to book, that to search was not always to find, and to find was not always to be informed"

December 20, 2005 11:00 PM


(December 21, 2005 11:39 AM #)

Wikipedia tends to be extremely accurate when it comes to TCS, comic books and sci-fi. It also does a good job on military related articles. Using it for anything else is a crap shoot but show me where in Britannica you can read up on all past and present members of the X-Men (in preparation for the new movie of course) and I'll start paying more attention to Britannica's complaints.

Post a comment

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Remember Me?

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: