[Air-l] Wikipedia vs. Nature article update

[Sam Liban]

Dear Ingbert,

Thank you for this really interesting statement!

I am bemused by the tone and the accusations. As someone in marketing, I
would have thought, that a company like britannica would rather choose a
more "de-escalating" communication... 

I find really interesting, that the authors of this britannica-rejction of
the nature-study many times point out, that they did not show certain
information in an article, because it would distract the reader.

This is exactly, where Wikipedia beats Britannica - and always will! 

Wikipedia can link furthergoing informations, such as arguable views of
different scientists, when a Nobel prize was awarded and when it was handed
over.

But - I must also acknowkledge, that especially the English Wikipedia is
very...unique in the way the information or the editing of it is used.
 
I had the pleasure of reviewing the German and the English Wikipedia
concerning "geodesy" - and the differences in accuracy, depth of information
and presentation of different views inside the scientific community
were...unexpectedly great.
I thought about this for two weeks now, and after visiting the GOR, the
German(or now General) Online Research Conference in Bielefeld this week, I
made contact to different scholars and universities, which all focussed in
their studies on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, none really answered my
questions/concerns fully.
=>
I am searching for a "sound" study, comparing the Wikipedias of this world
regarding this issue - the accuracy of information and the way the Wikipedia
is used by the different "cultures" to present views as informations (and
here the problem begins - which culture is supposed to influence the English
Wikipedia - the British, Australian or the American? for example).
But it got obvious to me, that the German Wikipedia was far more accurate
and precise about key facts and especially about the current debate on an
issue in geodesy.

Wikipedia is just in it's youth, britannica has been there for quite some
time - so I personally opt for a mixture of both for the present. 

The future is Wikipedias, though - make no mistake by denying the power of
letting individuals contribute to a knowledge-base, while every other
individual can acutally check and better the content entered. 

And I would provokingly assume, that the quality of the content of a
specific Wikipedia then reflects the abilities of the corresponding
culture/society to distribute knowledge equally enough to ensure a basic
understanding...and therefore useable distinction between views and
objective informations (if there are any) ;)

And of course, no German politician would ever consider misusing the German
Wikipedia for at least doubtable informations - that would be her/his end -
in other countries and cultures, this is seen as an "intelligent" useage of
a medium, though.

Wikipedia is really fascinating - in so many ways - it already changes the
life of so many people. When the kids from friends visit us and question us
about the unexpected (and kids do have a sense, which questions you would
not expect) we sit together infront of Wikipedia and research it => and
through links inside Wikipedia and to the corresponding institutions we gain
valueable knowledge.

I for one will see to it, that Wikipedia grows - at least the German one,
that I can influence much better, as it is my mother-tounge.

Sorry, if it went off-topic...but then...the language debate did too ;)

Take care and give Wikipedia it's time...

sam


>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org 
>[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] Im Auftrag von Ingbert Floyd
>Gesendet: Samstag, 25. März 2006 22:05
>An: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>Betreff: [Air-l] Wikipedia vs. Nature article update
>
>FYI, Britannica has responded to the Nature article, and it's 
>pointed, relatively detailed/in-depth response:
>
>http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
>
>Ingbert Floyd
>PhD Student
>Graduate School of Library and Information Science University 
>of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
>
>--
>
>==========================================
>Check out the unofficial GSLIS Wiki:
>
>http://www.gslis.org/
>
>Tell me what you think, if you find it useful, or if you have 
>any ideas for how to organize it better.  And if you feel 
>comfortable doing so, I heartily encourage you to contribute content!
>
>This GSLIS is the Graduate School of Library and Information 
>Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
>_______________________________________________
>The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the 
>Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, 
>change options or unsubscribe at: 
>http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
>Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
>http://www.aoir.org/