Encyclopædia Britannica competing with Wikipedia?

Originally Posted by taustin

Wikipedia does not allow the use of primary sources. That makes it something other than a repository for state of the art facts.

No one should head to Wikipedia, or Britannica, for state of the art facts. In order to understand current views on a subject, you pretty much have to look at academic sources. Anything else is either going to take a more conservative approach, or there is a high probability that you're reading weakly supported arguments. Of course, that is assuming that you're using intellectually honest sources. There are more than enough fringe theories out there that are selective in their choice of evidence or use evidence that is verifiably wrong.

Outside of astronomy, I like researching First Nations history. It is fascinating how much contemporary thought diverges from textbook presentations. There is a good reason for that. Traditional presentations rely heavily upon western records, because historians have traditionally relied upon texts that they considered authoritative. Those texts were, of course, heavily biased because of the social and political views of the day. Contemporary thought diverges because it examines other evidence. Sometimes it is less authoritative texts. Sometimes it is archaeological finds. Even the nature of archaeological finds is rapidly changing as better tools become available. All of this presents a much more interesting picture of what the Americas looked like in the past. In the long run, much of this will likely be adopted as fact.

Yet I won't go to the Wikipedia for that sort of knowledge. I won't go to Britannica either. Simply put, we haven't taken enough time to consider the implications of the new techniques that have uncovered new evidence nor have we taken enough time to examine the implications of the evidence itself. That takes time and discourse that are within the realm of the academic. It takes one researcher proposing an idea and another to say that they are wrong, then critically examining what they do and do not know to prove that one side or the other is correct. Or maybe it takes one researcher to propose an idea and another to support them with more evidence. While I'm a bit more skeptical of that approach, because it is easy to be selective about evidence unless someone challenges you critically, it at least forces us to progressively develop ideas.

It is easy to say that facts are facts, yet facts are never that easy to come by. I like the example of Eratosthenes, who measured the circumference of the Earth over 2000 years ago. He did. The results were quite accurate. What people often fail to acknowledge is that Eratosthenes' measurements were based upon some very important assumptions, such as the sun being far enough away for the incident rays to be parallel. While we now know that those assumptions are sound, that wasn't always the case. For all his contemporaries knew, Eratosthenes' data may have proven that the sun was 6200 km away. A similar idea hold for Copernicus. We now accepts the gist of his ideas. Yet, from the perspective of his contemporaries, he presented a model that was less accurate than Ptolemy's. It took Kepler to fix the inaccuracies and Newton to say why Kepler's model worked. In the cases of Eratosthenes and Copernicus, acceptance took a long time coming but it was because the solid evidence took a long time to develop.

Now those are just examples that proved to be correct in the long run. How many examples were there of incorrect theories, theories that were on similar foundations at the time but that the evidence eventually contradicted? Do we want that sort of thing to creep into encyclopedias? Even if you point to the prior ideas being wrong, is it better to have a stable set of knowledge that is overturned with time or is it better to have an unstable set of knowledge that accepts that it may eventually be replaced. Clearly I'm arguing in favour of the former. Perhaps you prefer the latter. (Even though I do prefer the former, I accept the latter is necessary in academic circles. The difference being that academics follow some rules when it comes to the questioning and development of knowledge, while fringe theories seem to be the norm in society at large because they don't accept those rules.)

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

No one should head to Wikipedia, or Britannica, for state of the art facts.

No one should head to either for something they do not claim to do. And they claim to do different things.

Originally Posted by taustin

No one should head to either for something they do not claim to do. And they claim to do different things.

I suspect that too much is being read into the non-credibility of the Wikipedia and the credibility of Britannica. If you stick to topics that both cover, the reliability should be quite similar. Indeed, studies have indicated such. Even if you go into topics that are covered only by Wikipedia, comply to Wikipedia guidelines, and are non-controversial you should be okay. Keep in mind that the Wikipedia does provide many forms of tools to assess problematic articles.

Also keep in mind that I'm not claiming that the Wikipedia is perfect, or even close to it. I am claiming that many of the claims about it's unreliability are overblown. Take an anonymous comment from another thread:

This is one of those controversial subjects where Wikipedia is useless, and the only thing you can really be sure of is that whatever it says is wrong.

Well, no. I do agree that the Wikipedia is an extremely poor source in this case because it is a controversial topic and because there is likely a conflict of interest. (I suspect that most of the people involved with the Wikipedia are opposed to DRM simply because the mission of the Wikipedia contradicts reflects open access.) Yet that doesn't mean that the article is wrong. Highly selective in what the evidence that it chooses to present, sure. Highly biased in its interpretation of that evidence, sure. You definitely need to be careful about stuff like that. Yet that doesn't mean that whatever it says on the topic is wrong.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I suspect that too much is being read into the non-credibility of the Wikipedia and the credibility of Britannica.

This has nothing to do with the credibility of either. This has to do with the stated purpose of both.

You would not take your child to a veterinarian when he's sick, and you would not take your dog to a pediatrician when it's stick.

Britannica and Wikipedia say their purposes are different.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

If you stick to topics that both cover, the reliability should be quite similar.

No. They shouldn't. They very often are, but there's no reason to expect that. Britannica (tries to) report how things are. That's what they say. Wikipedia does not. They (try to) report how people believe things are. That's their published policy. And when confronted with compelling evidence that the popular belief is simply wrong, they have held to that policy, and said that's their intent. Their words, not mine.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Indeed, studies have indicated such. Even if you go into topics that are covered only by Wikipedia, comply to Wikipedia guidelines, and are non-controversial you should be okay.

The other category is areas where knowledge has very recently changed, as with the research on the Haymarket Riot.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia does provide many forms of tools to assess problematic articles.

Indeed. And those tools have driven a lot of potential contributors away. Take a look at this for a first hand (and remarkably non-hostile) account of how badly it can go wrong.

"I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka’s The Trial I have ever witnessed"

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Also keep in mind that I'm not claiming that the Wikipedia is perfect, or even close to it. I am claiming that many of the claims about it's unreliability are overblown.

And I'm claiming that discussing unreliability is pointless without first understanding what they are trying to do. And comparing their reliability to Britannica is utterly and completely pointless, because they do not try to do the same thing. You might as well compare their reliability to a web site that sells t-shirt. They just aren't comparable.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Take an anonymous comment from another thread:



Well, no. I do agree that the Wikipedia is an extremely poor source in this case because it is a controversial topic and because there is likely a conflict of interest.

The failings of Wikipedia are institutional, rooted in the deliberate lack of central authority. And it's been slowly coming to a head in recent years, and the structural (or lack thereof) decisions made in the beginning are making it worse, not better - driving out more impartial people, and retaining only the most boneheaded and stubborn, who are far more likely to be biased.

When the way to win edit wars is to be a bigger bully than the other guy, you don't get impartiality.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

(I suspect that most of the people involved with the Wikipedia are opposed to DRM simply because the mission of the Wikipedia contradicts reflects open access.) Yet that doesn't mean that the article is wrong. Highly selective in what the evidence that it chooses to present, sure. Highly biased in its interpretation of that evidence, sure. You definitely need to be careful about stuff like that. Yet that doesn't mean that whatever it says on the topic is wrong.

On a controversial topic, what stays in the article is what the most pig headed, stubborn, biggest bully editor believes. That doesn't inherently make it wrong, but you wouldn't want to bet any other way. Wikipedia has some very deep problems, rooted in the original concept.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by taustin

[...]

Wikipedia does not allow the use of primary sources. That makes it something other than a repository for state of the art facts.

"No original research" isn't the same as "no primary sources".

Thus if I wish to reference Magna Carta I could go direct to an image of the original.

Is "The Federalist Papers" a primary source ?

A published letter by Napoleon ?

A issued patent?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

"No original research" isn't the same as "no primary sources".

Thus if I wish to reference Magna Carta I could go direct to an image of the original.

Is "The Federalist Papers" a primary source ?

A published letter by Napoleon ?

A issued patent?

According to the article I posted the link to, no, that's not correct. He cited the trial transcripts and was told "no primary sources."

And the first three examples you give, it is extremely unlikely you would be allowed anywhere near the original. What you would cite would be reproductions, which usually come with at least some commentary. A patent, technically, would violate their patent, but a web page talking about it would not.