Amiga.org

The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: SysAdmin on March 16, 2012, 02:32:34 AM

Title: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: SysAdmin on March 16, 2012, 02:32:34 AM
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/15/150244/wikipedia-didnt-kill-brittanica-encarta-did
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: CritAnime on March 16, 2012, 02:45:46 AM
I remember at school there were dozens of editions of Britanica where they tried to update it. then one year they got a few copies of encarter. And that was that. Though now Encarter no longer exists as it was closed back in 2009. But Britanica still exists online....
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Duce on March 16, 2012, 04:20:00 AM
Britannica is one of the very few companies in print media that "got it" very early into the digital revolution.

People are claiming Britannica is going belly up.  No.  They have decided to cease the print version - a version that made up a pissant 1% of their sales last year.  The company is doing tremendously well digitally.  

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577280143864147250.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-print-publication?newsfeed=true
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Kesa on March 16, 2012, 07:49:30 AM
I don't understand the relevance of Britannica in the 21st century. I mean, who would pay for an online encyclopedia that is out of date? And what can it offer that the free Wikipedia cannot?

Besides encyclopedia's are highly overrated in their usefulness for information anyway. Any information they contain is too generalized too be useful.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Duce on March 16, 2012, 08:15:05 AM
Educational institutions are more than happy to pay for Britannica services.  They keep their online information up to date Wikipedia style, sans the community input aspect Wikipedia has, which can breed false information.

Wikipedia is a community resource, and as such cannot be 100% trusted for valid information.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: itix on March 16, 2012, 08:24:44 AM
Quote from: Duce;683971
Educational institutions are more than happy to pay for Britannica services.  They keep their online information up to date Wikipedia style, sans the community input aspect Wikipedia has, which can breed false information.

Wikipedia is a community resource, and as such cannot be 100% trusted for valid information.


And you trust Britannica?
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Senex on March 16, 2012, 09:02:25 AM
Quote from: itix;683972
And you trust Britannica?


At least much more than Wikipedia. Don't know about finnish version, but german one is very much controlled by a certain political direction. Thus while Wikipedia is certainly useful for looking up aspects of (most) natural sciences, one definitely can't rely on it with regard to political, historical and probably also some other aspects.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: itix on March 16, 2012, 10:40:31 AM
Quote from: Senex;683974
At least much more than Wikipedia. Don't know about finnish version, but german one is very much controlled by a certain political direction. Thus while Wikipedia is certainly useful for looking up aspects of (most) natural sciences, one definitely can't rely on it with regard to political, historical and probably also some other aspects.


I dont trust Wikipedia either (political, historical and other aspects you mention) but I dont see any reason why should I have more trust for printed media.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Kesa on March 16, 2012, 10:44:48 AM
Buuuuuuuulllllllll. Shhhhhhiiiiiiiitttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!

People are always going on about Wiki being unreliable but i disagree. First - if anyone changes something the original poster is notified by email immediately and they usually change it back immediately. And second - if something is "wrong" and if enough people complain wiki will step in and resolve the issue. And third - Who is to say that one person is right over another? Historical facts will always be disputed, whether they are idiots on A.org or academics that are well respected people will always disagree. Overall Wiki isn't anymore trust worthy than Britannica.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: huronking on March 16, 2012, 11:03:13 AM
I use wikipedia everyday and it is a great resource. It can't be denied that it is degraded by people with agendas, though. I've seen perfectly legitimate and informative articles deleted repeatedly for little reason at all beyond ignorance and prejudice with no sincere recourse.

I wish it wasn't broken.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Duce on March 16, 2012, 11:17:18 AM
Do I trust Britannica?  Do I trust Wikipedia?  As in using either for a single, definitive source of information?  Absolutely not.

I've also not had to write a term paper for 20 years, so any "pedia" use for me is purely out of curiosity.

If you are trying to claim an open source/community contributed project like Wikipedia is just as soild of an info source as a closed source, there's simply too many factors to figure in.  Cite Wikipedia in a term paper, I dare you :)

Jerkoff Wiki user #1 decides to deface a Wikipedia entry.  Let's say it's an obscure Wiki entry where the original contributors no longer look after it, followers of said content are few and far between.  Jerkoff Wiki User #1 could deface that with all sorts of bull**** and it might not be noticed by anyone for 2 weeks, except some poor kid writing a paper based on the information.  The flaws and benefits of Wikipedia style affairs are pretty clear.  Flaw - everyone can contribute, and some dick can put false facts.  Benefit - up to the minute updates on entries, assuming they are fairly popular you can assume they are relatively accurate.  A new vs. old media mindset to some degree?  Sure.  What is great about Wikipedia is also what is wrong with it.

Drawbacks of Britannica type things are few, but if you are daft enough to assume they only update online materials once a year like the old print versions, you are wrong.  Is it up to the minute up to date as Wikipedia is?  No.  But it is fact checked, and inherently cite-able. The Britannica won't tell you who Beiber is dating right now, or who's banging Paris Hilton this week.  If I'm looking up detailed historical data that I can actually cite without my Prof laughing me out of the class, I ain't going to Wikipedia.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: persia on March 16, 2012, 01:24:00 PM
Wait, they used to print to dammed thing?  Well that's just stupid....
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: JimS on March 16, 2012, 01:33:54 PM
My dad tried to give away the set he bought for us kids back in grade school... No takers. Of course, that set was written in cuneiform on clay tablets. ;-)
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: odin on March 16, 2012, 02:45:13 PM
When I was young I loved browsing the (paper) encyclopedia my parents own. I could lose myself in it for hours, much like browsing Wikipedia in modern times =).
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: ChuckT on March 17, 2012, 06:13:06 AM
Quote from: Senex;683974
At least much more than Wikipedia. Don't know about finnish version, but german one is very much controlled by a certain political direction. Thus while Wikipedia is certainly useful for looking up aspects of (most) natural sciences, one definitely can't rely on it with regard to political, historical and probably also some other aspects.


Sometimes paid help can get knowledge that free help cannot.  I would hate to be relying on someone who wasn't an engineer for engineering advice.  We have a co-worker who went to school but we couldn't let the person work on installing 220 volt electric because our co-worker wasn't licensed.

Wikipedia cannot substitute for a doctor or true medical advice.

I think viewpoints and personal things are one thing but knowledge from someone who has a master's or Phd goes a long way than something that is free on Wikipedia.

I'm amazed that Wikipedia has some good content but I've had to pay for specialized content because only true professionals can provide that.  I think more man hours was put in the making of Brittanica and it will sorely be missed.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Kesa on March 17, 2012, 07:24:33 AM
@ChuchT.

Academics are a waste of space! Remember the more an academic learns about something the less relevant that academic becomes relative to that content!

Burn the academics! :flame:
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Fats on March 17, 2012, 01:54:58 PM
Quote from: ChuckT;684117
Sometimes paid help can get knowledge that free help cannot.  I would hate to be relying on someone who wasn't an engineer for engineering advice.  We have a co-worker who went to school but we couldn't let the person work on installing 220 volt electric because our co-worker wasn't licensed.


Sometimes a friend without the proper engineering degree can fix your (motor)bike or your lawn mower. Often it is done better than done by a shop as it is more than a job for them but also a passion.

Quote from: ChuckT;684117
Wikipedia cannot substitute for a doctor or true medical advice.


Nor can encyclopedia Britannica.

Quote from: ChuckT;684117
I think viewpoints and personal things are one thing but knowledge from someone who has a master's or Phd goes a long way than something that is free on Wikipedia.


As if they can't have false believes or make mistakes; I don't find the reference but saw once some statistics comparing errors in a commercial encyclopedia vs. wikipedia. There was no clear winner. Probably the investigation was tainted by what the guy who did the research wanted to prove. But I don't think that information commercially produced is by default trustable or the only way to generate correct information. Look at the whole commercial rubbisch you can find in papers and on television.

Quote from: ChuckT;684117
I'm amazed that Wikipedia has some good content but I've had to pay for specialized content because only true professionals can provide that.  I think more man hours was put in the making of Brittanica and it will sorely be missed.


I am convinced that in a few years time we will laugh with such statements; people used to think the same about putting money on the bank, calling each other anywhere with just a small box in their hand, etc. You can't stop progress, I don't see why general knowledge can only be made in a commercial way and not done by a community. And yes, I also think the academic world will be the last community to conform to the new reality.

greets,
Staf.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: ChuckT on March 17, 2012, 08:28:01 PM
Quote from: Kesa;684120
@ChuchT.

Academics are a waste of space! Remember the more an academic learns about something the less relevant that academic becomes relative to that content!

Burn the academics! :flame:


When I was in high school, Hewlett Packard only would hire people with master's or doctor degrees to work on their computers.

The transistor was made in Bell labs.  I'm sure they were academic.

It isn't that kind of world anymore and fewer employers are willing to pay for on the job training because they want a sure thing.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: ChuckT on March 17, 2012, 08:35:45 PM
Quote from: Fats;684144
As if they can't have false believes or make mistakes; I don't find the reference but saw once some statistics comparing errors in a commercial encyclopedia vs. wikipedia. There was no clear winner. Probably the investigation was tainted by what the guy who did the research wanted to prove. But I don't think that information commercially produced is by default trustable or the only way to generate correct information. Look at the whole commercial rubbisch you can find in papers and on television.


A lot of people on tv are, journalists, actors, or have a liberal arts degree which doesn't qualify them to be peer reviewers.

Being on tv or watching tv doesn't qualify as research.

My doctor doesn't listen or read anything I print off the internet because of malpractice and he only learns from his institution which grants him his higher learning.  

Someone wants to be on tv, someone doesn't like something so they do an incomplete study, they make faulty conclusions as a result and they publish a news story or article.  Correlation doesn't prove causation.  Just because you correlated two facts doesn't mean there isn't another cause.  This is why you need someone who is trained by someone who is trained because the average buthead watching tv wouldn't know if the person on tv is making up his own ideas or whether he is getting them from higher education based on facts.
Title: Re: Who killed Britannica?
Post by: Kesa on March 17, 2012, 09:25:04 PM
I agree. In my profession there are always people commenting that a higher education isn't needed and i can confirm that there are many people without a qualification who's abilities are higher than those with a higher education. But only up to a point. A former work colleague who was without doubt a smart individual and good at his job would constantly try to prove that a higher education wasn't needed. But then he would make assumptions about concepts that were just completely wrong. So while it is possible to learn on the job to a high level, it won't allow you to learn the theory and concepts behind what they are doing.

I would also like to mention how i define an academic. An academic is someone who has such a high level of (perceived) knowledge they cannot be challenged. So while i dislike academics i also appreciate the value of an education.