June 7, 2005
The Authority Debate: A Chronological Link List
Wikipedia v Britannica
Felten, Edward W. “Wikipedia vs. Britannica Smackdown”. Freedom to Tinker. 7 Sept. 2004. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/index.php?p=675. 7 June 2005.
The initial entry, so far as I’m aware, in the comparisons of Wikipedia and Britannica. Felten provides a side-by-side comparison of entries (or lack thereof) on the topics in his previous test (see previous entry). Conclusion:
Wikipedia’s advantage is in having more, longer, and more current entries. It if weren’t for the Microsoft-case entry, Wikipedia would have been the winner hands down. Britannica’s advantage is in having lower variance in the quality of its entries.(Same-day link post in BoingBoing, 9/9/04 link post on Many 2 Many.)
Zuckerman, Ethan. “Systemic Biases in Wikipedia?” ...My heart’s in Accra: Ethan Zuckerman’s ramblings on Africa, technology and media. 27 Sept. 2004. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethan/2004/09/27#a356. 7 June 2005.
Zuckerman points to the problem (and driving force) in peer-production projects: people work on what they’re interested in. He projects a white, male, Western, technocrat population of Wikipedians, which results in a resource “extremely deep on technical topics and shallow in other areas. Nigeria’s brilliant author Chinua Achebe gets a 1582 byte stub of an article, while the GSM mobile phone standard gets 16,500 bytes of main entry, with dozens of related articles.” He also points to the CROSSBOW (Committee Regarding Overcoming Serious Systemic Bias on Wikipedia). Zuckerman ends by asking if it is sensible to compare Wikipedia to Brittanica, but does not reach a conclusion.
(Same day link post at Many 2 Many.)
Posted by kenne329 at June 7, 2005 3:37 PM | Wikipedia