h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yet another "Is wiki crap?" thread

I see one of the founders of wikipedia is setting up another online encyclopedia...er citizens compendium, because he thinks wiki is so inaccurate:

http://citizendium.org/

It will be a mix of public input and professional editing.


>>>
A "progressive fork" works like this: we will begin with all of Wikipedia's articles, so that the Citizendium will begin as, simply, a mirror of Wikipedia. Then people start making changes to articles in the Citizendium. On a very regular basis, we will refresh our copies of Wikipedia articles. If an entry in the Citizendium has never changed since being copied from Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia version has, then we upload the most recent Wikipedia article. But if the Citizendium has changed an article, then it is not refreshed. Tools will no doubt be written that will allow users to compare the differences between the Wikipedia article and the Citizendium article side-by-side. In addition, of course, people will be able to start brand new articles on topics Wikipedia has not yet covered.
<<<


Any thoughts?

I see it is, technologically, another wiki. I've just read the front page, though.

I might try to keep a little eye on it. I am a registered Wikipedia user, and you'll find a link to my Wikipedia space on hy h2g2 Personal Space.

TRiG.

I think the compendium won't allow entries to be changed by the public.


There was an interview on the radio this morning about it:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/ninetonoon/20061123 (scroll down to "technology")

Well, its yet another bloody stupid name.

It sounds like a good idea, but one of the key benefits of Wikipedia's flexible model is that it can stay up-to-date. I can't see how paid editors could keep up effectively with advancement in many fast-moving fields (politics, science, news in general, obscure academia). So, freezing articles could mean fossilizing them. I suppose if readers had some way to flag an out-of-date article that would be a start.

Ironically, the only articles to be frozen in Citizendium, and therefore out of date, are the ones that the professionals have modified. The other articles will be updated regularly, although not instantly, from wikipedia.

I think Wikipedia has taught us all a valuable lesson: never believe anything you read on the internet. Check everything.

I read recently that a study of a number of Wikipedia science articles found them to contain fewer errors than Encyclopaedia Britannica.

There's alot in wiki that isn't a science article.

'I see one of the founders of wikipedia ...thinks wiki is so inaccurate'

Why are people laughing?

Because practically everyone was telling Wiki that unless they had moderators they would end up with an inaccurate encyclopedia from day one, but they have always defended their self moderating system as being the most accurate way of doing things...which, it's like...clearly not?

Ok. I thought it was generally accepted now that there is alot of inaccuracy in wiki.

It has, but never really by them. The only thing that really worries me about this new site is if they are starting out with innacurate Wiki material and claiming their new modding system is an accuracy safeguard, people may start thinking that what they are reading there must be correct even when it isn't.

BTW I liked the Spike Milligan clip at the end of your Radionz link about Wiki

"That naughty Spike Milligan"


One good thing that could come out of it is getting people to realise that you have to take a critical approach to everything you read. The fact that there is a next step beyond wiki might show people the limit's of trusting something just because it's big and successful.

The problem is it's not just Wiki that can't be trusted. This lot made me laugh when I read the second paragraph about Queen Guinevere at the top of Glastonbury Tor. I see they've altered it a bit from the original (it used to say ' This was the home of King Melwas' not 'Tradition makes this') but the 'information' is, so far as I can tell, unique to their site:

http://www.britannia.com/history/somerset/somhist4.html

When I first read it I wondered if the researcher had visited the town and fallen victim to the popular local sport of 'tourist baiting' where locals tell usually Americans, who'll believe anything, local 'history' that exists only in the mind of the person telling the story. Some locals have this off to an art form and can keep a straight face even as they send the gullible tourist merrily on their way.

Do they teach media critiqueing at secondary schools at all? I know alot of kids use the internet to do their homework now, so one would hope that they're being taught some skills on how to interpret the sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2G2

OK. How correct is this?

Some of it is very up-to-date, other parts are already dated, such as its reference to the Collaborative Writing Workshop, which has been gone a long time.

"such as its reference to the Collaborative Writing Workshop, which has been gone a long time"

Fixed.