Wikipedia:Village pump (news) - Wikipedia


Article Images

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Quite predictably, they didn't like it. AxelBoldt 16:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The response by the two Encyclopaedia to the review is iluminating. Wikipedia: OK, fair comment we will fix it. Britannica: no, we are right and Nature is wrong, we will not fix it. --Salix alba (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their response is more nuanced than that. They claim some of the reviewers used ancillary Britannica publications or article summaries rather than the encyclopedia. Yet I'm not sure how they reached those conclusions since they didn't have access to the original Nature study. Durova 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this Reg story summarising the response. If Britannica is right, the Nature study is indeed profoundly flawed and quite worthless as an assessment of Wikipedia's relative quality. Sandstein 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's been noted here, but Roy Rosenzweig, of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, has come to similar conclusions when it comes to history articles on Wikipedia vs. print sources. They have an article on this that will come out this year (not sure when exactly), in the Journal of American History. And, I'm not entirely sure of their methodology, compared to that used by Nature. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Register story is written by Andrew Orlowski, need more be said? Pcb21 Pete 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider the irony of it: the most prestigious scientific journal fighting with the most prestigious encyclopedia, the two accusing each other of serious mistakes and omissions, sloppy research, failure to check their experts, withholding data, spinning results... No matter the outcome, it's clear that the mantra "never trust any source" will gain traction. AxelBoldt 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you sir lack understanding of the scientific process. The Psycho 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature have now responded to Brittanica's response [1]. Very interesting. RicDod 20:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica make some good points in their critique, but they are equally disingenuous. In pointing out that some of comparisons were made against articles in the ancilliary publications or conjoined sections of articles, they are presumably failing to mention that they are simply missing articles on significant subjects. Does a subscriber to the online Britannica looking up Dolly the Sheep or Steven Wolfram genuinely realise they are accessing a lower quality, ancilliary article? I would assume that owners of the print edition get nothing. If Nature had compared them on the print edition they would have probably scored 'strike zero' on significant omissions for not having the article. Similarly on the cobbled together articles, if a reader of Britannica looked up aldol reaction would they have found anything? You could argue that Nature were quite soft on Britannica by allowing redirects to relevant subsections. -- Solipsist 21:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but Nature stated explicitly that they used the online edition of Britannica. Likewise, Nature replies that they sometimes used excerpts from both encyclopedias so that articles would be of comparable links. Most of the allegations that Britannica raises would apply equally to both sites. There was no systematic bias in favor of Wikipedia. Durova 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a recent AP story also; it can be read here.--GregRM 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And a BBC one. \Mike(z) 18:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The survey was done months ago. Since then Wikipedia has improved significantly; Britannica hardly at all. Choalbaton 18:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature's answer to Britannica states : "But this applied as much to criticisms of Wikipedia as of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because the reviewers were blind to the source of the material they were evaluating, and material from bobth sources was treated the same way ..."
Here a huge doubt seizes me. There may be a strong bias. What if the articles contained "This science concept is a stub. You can help *** *** by improving it" ? --DLL 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite unlikely. If their intention was to keep the reviewers blind, I highly doubt they would of making the mistake of leaving a tag that identifies the source. Nil Einne 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this was on the front page (below the fold) of the Wall Street Journal. It was fairly neutral, I guess. BrokenSegue 21:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An amusing blog entry by Robert Daely:

The Britannica strikes back…

(Scrolling up the screen and disappearing into the distance…) 

It is a dark time for Wikipedia.

Although the science journal Nature article has been published,
Encyclopedist troops have driven the Wiki forces from
their hidden server and pursued them across the Internet.
Evading the dreaded Britannica Corporate propaganda,
a group of Wikipedians led by the Wikimedia Foundation
has established a new secret wiki on remote webservers.
The evil Britannica, obsessed with the young Foundation,
has dispatched thousands of lawyers and spin doctors
into the far reaches of the Web...
) — Catherine\talk 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica today has a half-page ad in the (london) Times with the text of their rebuttal of Nature's findings. Apwoolrich 08:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a scan of the ad. — Catherine\talk 00:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenodot, a sister of the company that had previously published the German Wikipedia on DVD, had planned to publish the German Wikipedia in book form, 100 volumes with 800 pages each, starting this fall. Today they announced that the project was put on hold, citing lack of support from the community. German news article. AxelBoldt 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a dud idea. The English Wikipedia is years away from being of a consistently high enough quality to go into print. If it ever gets there it will be too vast by that time to contemplate the idea. I expect the German wikipedia is behind overall. People will buy a DVD so they can use it on a lap top or as a vanity purchase because they contributed to the content, but who is going to buy a set of 100 or more books that will be inferior to the online edition on the day they are delivered? (Beyond maybe a few selected volumes to which contain articles to which they made major contributions) Choalbaton 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, the German Wikipedia holds a much higher level of quality than the English Wikipedia does. Jon Harald Søby 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does it still mistakenly claim that Christoph Kardinal Schönborn was born Graf von Schönborn-Wiesentheid? His ancestry is collateral to the "Wiesentheid" line: the surname is Schönborn, not Schönborn-Wiesentheid. - Nunh-huh 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're all scholars or something, but your economy is going down the pan, so you're in no position to gloat at the English speaking world. Golfcam 23:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you missing a smiley or something there? Anyways, I work nearly exclusively on en:, but I use both de: and en:. The German version is often (but not always) superior. No firm idea why. Also, no reason to explode over... --Stephan Schulz 08:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's calm down the flames, everyone. --Golbez 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree calm down. I don't speak German but why it should be of such mortal concern to anyone that the German version could be better then English I don't know. Also, pointing out one mistake is rather silly. I don't know who Christoph Kardinal Schönborn is but one single error doesn't go any way to prove or deny the accuracy of the German wikipedia over the English version. Suggesting it does is rather silly. Even if Christoph Kardinal Schönborn is a rather notible figure in German history, it still doesn't prove anything Nil Einne 14:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I agree that it's a dud idea - for now. In the distant future, 10 years maybe, when the major articles have been peer reviewed enough and sourced enough, it could be a possible thing for large libraries and such. But right now, it's a little too much for too little benefit. Focus on the DVD product, that is a much better idea. --Golbez 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this is ever likely to be an especially useful idea. Searching through a collection of 1,000,000 short articles will always be easier in hypertext than in a physical book, and surely the cost of books is only going up while the cost of connecting to the internet, or buying a DVD-ROM and something that can read it, is only going down. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the relative merits of the German and English versions, I find it hard to see the advantages of issuing a print version over a DVD version. Not only is there a vast difference in production costs, but DVD versions are much more portable and easier to update. Durova 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that DVD versions don't work if you don't have a computer as with probably 85% of the world? Of course, a great number of those who are least likely to be able to use a DVD version probably don't understand German but the fact of the matter is a print version would be useful to people who don't have a computer and don't have easy access to one. Don't get me wrong, I do think the print idea was a mistake, but print has numerous advantages over DVD (just as DVD has numerous advantages over print) Nil Einne 14:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but buying a computer with a DVD player would be sheaper then buying an printed version of wikipedia algumacoisaqq 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible that a paperback edition published in a developing country could be priced competiviely against a computer plus DVD edition of Wikipedia. Of course, that would no longer be primarily about raising money for Wikipedia, but rather about distributing some form of Wikipedia to people who would otherwise not have access. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be more than three months since the last quarterly fundraiser began because it started before Christmas. When is the next one going to be? Sumahoy 03:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, you don't have to wait until a fundraiser to donate to Wikimedia--that is, if you wish to donate in the first place.  Denelson83  19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please see my changes to Howard Kaloogian, regarding a scandal involving fake photos of Baghdad. Kaloogian is the founder of Move America Forward, a conservative organisation. Markburg 07:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think you needed to bring this up here. A quick look suggets Kaloogian appears to have done many scandalous things but it's hardly a major scandal nor does it concern the majority of wikipedians. Nil Einne 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration: Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. Feel free to expand/clarify as you feel necessary. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:00

There is a new COTW: the Catholic Collaboration of the Week! All are invited to join. Please nominate your favorite Catholicism-related stub or article and help us hit the ground running. --Hyphen5 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am very new to Wikipedia but have been expanding Town and country planning in the United Kingdom with some zeal over the last few weeks and created a new subcategory of UK law called Category:United Kingdom planning law. I have reached a point where some experience would be very useful. How do I get some more people involved? Could someone with experience have a look at what I've written and advise on what articles we might be able to merge and what should stay separated for future expansion etc.etc. Many thanks --Mcginnly 10:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly detailed topic, so there may not be many Wikipedians that know much about it. You've asked here which is a good step. Make sure you link the article to and from other related topics wherever it is important, and that it is in the right categories. That should alert people on related topics that may know something about it. If no one can help then, it's just going to be up to you to do some solid research, and find the best sources for your article and cite them. In fact, you should do that anyway, but many great articles are the product of one person doing some very good research, and others just helping with sanity checking, style, and bias issues. - Taxman Talk 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could try Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. --Salix alba (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new project is publishing a CD with about 2000 hand-picked Wikipedia articles; see http://fixedreference.org/2006-Wikipedia-CD-Selection/. Discussion on the WikiEN-l mailing list starts here. AxelBoldt 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Alanmak has added a template at the top of all united nations-related articles containing the alternative names in 5 languages. This has caused a great deal of controversy. There is a poll being conducted at Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Poll to settle the issue. Raul654 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new organization, Community Justice, has started. We are dedicated to making Wikipedia a better place, so come sign up! --Osbus 22:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the name sounds like some kind of euphemism for mob rule. Is it possible to come up with a name which doesn't have this unfortunate connotation? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]