4 ms·

> 2. Wikipedia articles are a mile wide and an inch deep and pale in comparison to an actual encyclopedia. Do you have any examples? Or is this just a vague im

> 2. Wikipedia articles are a mile wide and an inch deep and pale in comparison to an actual encyclopedia. Do you have any examples? Or is this just a vague impression? There have been studies done about this by neutral outside researchers which found that generally Wikipedia was more comprehensive and more reliable than other encyclopedias.

keiferski 7y ago
Take the Vienna page as an example. In the introductory paragraphs, we have the text below. While it isn't incorrect or false, it's quite obviously included only facts that portray the city in the best possible light. If the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information in a neutral, objective way, this doesn't seem to fit the bill. I say this as someone who likes Vienna and thinks the quality-of-life studies are correct. But this information belongs in a sub-header, not in the introduction of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna Vienna is known for its high quality of life. In a 2005 study of 127 world cities, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked the city first (in a tie with Vancouver and San Francisco) for the world's most liveable cities. Between 2011 and 2015, Vienna was ranked second, behind Melbourne.[20][21][22][23][24] In 2018, it replaced Melbourne as the number one spot.[25] For ten consecutive years (2009–2019), the human-resource-consulting firm Mercer ranked Vienna first in its annual "Quality of Living" survey of hundreds of cities around the world.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Monocle's 2015 "Quality of Life Survey" ranked Vienna second on a list of the top 25 cities in the world "to make a base within."[34][35][36][37][38] The UN-Habitat classified Vienna as the most prosperous city in the world in 2012/2013.[39] The city was ranked 1st globally for its culture of innovation in 2007 and 2008, and sixth globally (out of 256 cities) in the 2014 Innovation Cities Index, which analyzed 162 indicators in covering three areas: culture, infrastructure, and markets.[40][41][42] Vienna regularly hosts urban planning conferences and is often used as a case study by urban planners.[43] Between 2005 and 2010, Vienna was the world's number-one destination for international congresses and conventions.[44] It attracts over 6.8 million tourists a year.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  And what does your favorite paper encyclopedia have to say in the first few paragraphs?
  - keiferski 7y ago
    I don't have a printed encyclopedia in front of me at the moment, but for comparison, here's the Encyclopedia Britannica online entry for Vienna. For the most part, it is pretty neutral and objective and has far less marketing-speak than Wikipedia. https://www.britannica.com/place/Vienna https://www.britannica.com/place/Vienna
    - WesleyLivesay 7y ago
      When I read this Vienna article, I agree that it has perhaps a bit less marketing speak (although I don't think the two paragraphs from the Wiki Intro you pulled are indicative of the whole article) but it is not any less positive on the city. In the linked article I think paragraphs 3 and 4 ("Vienna is among..." and "Viennese Lebenskunst...") basically read like they are from a Travel Guidebook on why you should add Vienna to your next itinerary. I think it also showcases two of the major problems I have with Britannica and most other "old school" encyclopedias: 1. A general aversion to putting dates with facts. For instance the article states that 2 million visitors comes to the city annually. The Wiki article links to statistics from the city that put that number much higher. I understand that the 2 million number may be from some time ago, but I have no way of knowing. My assumption has always been that they do not put dates on things to prevent appearing out of date. They are really good at putting dates on "history" but seem to be much more hesitant on putting dates on "current" information which makes me think that a lot of that "current" information is already "history" 2. Lack of any sort of citations. I do generally trust Britannica, but it would be nice to get information about where they are getting their information.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  Vienna is a very famous and touristed European city. If you start trying random less prominent (or non-European) cities, you’ll find Britannica’s coverege to often be quite limited. For example, compare (just picked at random) https://www.britannica.com/place/Al-Raqqah https://www.britannica.com/place/Al-Raqqah vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raqqa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raqqa https://www.britannica.com/place/Zhongshan https://www.britannica.com/place/Zhongshan vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhongshan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhongshan https://www.britannica.com/place/Wichita-Kansas https://www.britannica.com/place/Wichita-Kansas vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas https://www.britannica.com/place/Ulaanbaatar https://www.britannica.com/place/Ulaanbaatar vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulaanbaatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulaanbaatar https://www.britannica.com/place/Lagos-Nigeria https://www.britannica.com/place/Lagos-Nigeria vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos https://www.britannica.com/place/Colombo https://www.britannica.com/place/Colombo vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo https://www.britannica.com/place/Reykjavik https://www.britannica.com/place/Reykjavik vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk https://www.britannica.com/place/Tampico-Mexico https://www.britannica.com/place/Tampico-Mexico vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampico https://www.britannica.com/place/Belem-Brazil https://www.britannica.com/place/Belem-Brazil vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel%C3%A9m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel%C3%A9m

keiferski 7y ago

Take the Vienna page as an example. In the introductory paragraphs, we have the text below. While it isn't incorrect or false, it's quite obviously included only facts that portray the city in the best possible light. If the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information in a neutral, objective way, this doesn't seem to fit the bill. I say this as someone who likes Vienna and thinks the quality-of-life studies are correct. But this information belongs in a sub-header, not in the introduction of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna Vienna is known for its high quality of life. In a 2005 study of 127 world cities, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked the city first (in a tie with Vancouver and San Francisco) for the world's most liveable cities. Between 2011 and 2015, Vienna was ranked second, behind Melbourne.[20][21][22][23][24] In 2018, it replaced Melbourne as the number one spot.[25] For ten consecutive years (2009–2019), the human-resource-consulting firm Mercer ranked Vienna first in its annual "Quality of Living" survey of hundreds of cities around the world.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Monocle's 2015 "Quality of Life Survey" ranked Vienna second on a list of the top 25 cities in the world "to make a base within."[34][35][36][37][38] The UN-Habitat classified Vienna as the most prosperous city in the world in 2012/2013.[39] The city was ranked 1st globally for its culture of innovation in 2007 and 2008, and sixth globally (out of 256 cities) in the 2014 Innovation Cities Index, which analyzed 162 indicators in covering three areas: culture, infrastructure, and markets.[40][41][42] Vienna regularly hosts urban planning conferences and is often used as a case study by urban planners.[43] Between 2005 and 2010, Vienna was the world's number-one destination for international congresses and conventions.[44] It attracts over 6.8 million tourists a year.

ziddoap 7y ago
And what does your favorite paper encyclopedia have to say in the first few paragraphs?
- keiferski 7y ago
  I don't have a printed encyclopedia in front of me at the moment, but for comparison, here's the Encyclopedia Britannica online entry for Vienna. For the most part, it is pretty neutral and objective and has far less marketing-speak than Wikipedia. https://www.britannica.com/place/Vienna https://www.britannica.com/place/Vienna
  - WesleyLivesay 7y ago
    When I read this Vienna article, I agree that it has perhaps a bit less marketing speak (although I don't think the two paragraphs from the Wiki Intro you pulled are indicative of the whole article) but it is not any less positive on the city. In the linked article I think paragraphs 3 and 4 ("Vienna is among..." and "Viennese Lebenskunst...") basically read like they are from a Travel Guidebook on why you should add Vienna to your next itinerary. I think it also showcases two of the major problems I have with Britannica and most other "old school" encyclopedias: 1. A general aversion to putting dates with facts. For instance the article states that 2 million visitors comes to the city annually. The Wiki article links to statistics from the city that put that number much higher. I understand that the 2 million number may be from some time ago, but I have no way of knowing. My assumption has always been that they do not put dates on things to prevent appearing out of date. They are really good at putting dates on "history" but seem to be much more hesitant on putting dates on "current" information which makes me think that a lot of that "current" information is already "history" 2. Lack of any sort of citations. I do generally trust Britannica, but it would be nice to get information about where they are getting their information.
jacobolus 7y ago
Vienna is a very famous and touristed European city. If you start trying random less prominent (or non-European) cities, you’ll find Britannica’s coverege to often be quite limited. For example, compare (just picked at random) https://www.britannica.com/place/Al-Raqqah https://www.britannica.com/place/Al-Raqqah vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raqqa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raqqa https://www.britannica.com/place/Zhongshan https://www.britannica.com/place/Zhongshan vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhongshan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhongshan https://www.britannica.com/place/Wichita-Kansas https://www.britannica.com/place/Wichita-Kansas vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas https://www.britannica.com/place/Ulaanbaatar https://www.britannica.com/place/Ulaanbaatar vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulaanbaatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulaanbaatar https://www.britannica.com/place/Lagos-Nigeria https://www.britannica.com/place/Lagos-Nigeria vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos https://www.britannica.com/place/Colombo https://www.britannica.com/place/Colombo vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo https://www.britannica.com/place/Reykjavik https://www.britannica.com/place/Reykjavik vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk https://www.britannica.com/place/Tampico-Mexico https://www.britannica.com/place/Tampico-Mexico vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampico https://www.britannica.com/place/Belem-Brazil https://www.britannica.com/place/Belem-Brazil vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel%C3%A9m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel%C3%A9m