4 ms·

> There's no way to move it significantly past what it is now. I think having paid editors would fix most of those problems..

• redthrowaway 15y ago
  How would you pay for it? Also, the error rate on Wikipedia is comparable to Britannica, which is written by paid experts. Letting anybody edit has worked so far. It may need to be adjusted, but there's no need to entirely throw out the model that's been so incredibly successful.
  • bhousel 15y ago
    haha, ok
  • wbhart 15y ago
    This is NOT correct. It is highly dependent on the subject matter and what is filtered from Wikipedia before doing the comparison. Take a hard science and take everything that is written and Wikipedia is substantially worse. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica... Furthermore, take Wikipedia and compare it with authoritative books on the subject matter in the actual articles and you will find that Wikipedia contains many very serious errors. http://www.economist.com/node/17902943?story_id=17902943&CFID=159910163&CFTOKEN=53366793 http://www.economist.com/node/17902943?story_id=17902943&#38... (Search for Ofqual in that article.) In particular, Wikipedia is about as accurate as general books and press articles. It is not an accurate source of academic information.
    • redthrowaway 15y ago
      >It is not an accurate source of academic information. It has never claimed to be. It seems a bit silly to say that something is bad because it isn't some other thing that it was never designed to be. My iPhone is a pretty lousy toaster, too.