Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia

[Tom Morris]

On 20 January 2012 14:10, Charles Matthews
 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


___
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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/1/20 Carcharoth :
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
>  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

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
 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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/1/20 Fred Bauder :
>> 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

[Charles Matthews]

On 20 January 2012 13:18, wiki  wrote:




> 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

[wiki]

> -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

[Fred Bauder]

> 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

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:34 AM, David Gerard  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

[WikiEN-l] A Wikipedian asked to write for a paper encyclopedia

[David Gerard]

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