Comments on: Encyclopedias are like journalism: It’s better when they are open

By: Skepticnyc

Skepticnyc — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:19:09 +0000

This is complacent gibberish. The difference between the Britannica and Wikipedia that matters other than length is the fact that one is produced by known experts who are named and held very responsible for what they write, and the other produced by a largely ungoverned set of posters who in sum tend to believe in and peddle the ordinary conventional wisdom, abetted by those who benefit from it. Thus is there is a widespread myth about any topic it will tend to be perpetrated by Wiki and all attempts by the more knowledgeable to correct it will be resisted. Since progress in science and most other fields tends to be a matter of replacing the standard with the novel, Wiki is the last place one should refer to for up to date knowledge as it changes and moves forward. That is why the founder of Wiki has recently been sensitive on the issue of accuracy and responsibility and moved away from a totally open access mode.

Many topics should only be written about in Encyclopaedias by season veterans of the study who are known to be politically and career impartial scholars. Otherwise Wiki will continue to be plagued with entries as uninformed as this blog post.

By: Mike Licht

Mike Licht — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:16:39 +0000

When you want reliable, detailed information about Star Trek, go to Wikipedia. When you want trustworthy information on aerospace engineering or astronomy, use Britannica.

By: Elliot Adams

Elliot Adams — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:37:04 +0000

But the ‘new one’, in models like wikipedia, is less accurate and filled with trolls and people successfully pushing propaganda.

By: geeklinks

geeklinks — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:18:18 +0000

Well Britannica woke up and Finally Realized its 2012. Seriously I thought they got out of the printed Encyclopedia Business back after the Web 1.0 Crash in 2001.