So, what to believe? Here's Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, quoted on the Wall Street Journal: "It's hardly true we're as good as Britannica."  Wales said he was pleased that Nature focused on science "because on history and the social sciences, we're much weaker." Ah, but for computer  science and the history of Star Trek, said Wales, "Wikipedia is way better."

Funny, I think I said that at the time. Yes, indeed, here it is:

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: [PSYTEACH] Wikipedia (was Textbooks)
Date:	Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:33:35 -0500
From:	Christopher D. Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:	Society for Teaching of Psychology Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, TIPS <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu>
References:	<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Let us, please, remember that the Nature study was of a small number of
technical scientific entires. These are likely to be entered by people
who are specialists in the fields to which they relate. The kinds of
entires that are most likely to be affected by amateur (or saboteur)
opinions are those related to historical, social, or political content
(or anything else that "everyone" has an opinion about, unlike, say
molybdenum). Indeed, according to the Nature article itself, "the most
error-strewn article, that on Dmitry Mendeleev, co-creator of the
periodic table," an entry about a historical figure. This, as well, was
where Britannica (though not perfect) also showed the greatest advantage
over Wikipedia.

Regards,
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

416-736-5115 ex. 66164
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
======================


---


You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org


To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Britannica vs Wikipedia: The empire strikes back

Reply via email to