12 ms·

How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia? I would have assumed they stopped publishing it, but it looks like they are still updating the digital ve

How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia? I would have assumed they stopped publishing it, but it looks like they are still updating the digital version. I find Wikipedia to be a pretty good resource on most subjects, even if occasionally I run into low quality writing or missing citations.

wolverine876 3y ago
> How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia? My POV: Britannica article often are written by experts, sometimes the leaders in their fields (in the past they even had authors such as Albert Einstein). There's an editorial process to ensure accuracy by its formal meaning, the three C's: Correct, Complete, and Consistent. Also, the writing is often exceptional - sharp, expertly informed, with personality, like a top-notch professor. The downside is that the primary authors sometimes appear to have written decades ago (budget issues?) and then the articles were updated by editors. Also, while articles are internally consistent, Britannica is sometimes inconsistent between articles; for example, the article on hominids might say something slightly different about the evidence for primate evolution than the article on great apes; however, that is the case with every large reference work I've seen - you need to read a few articles if you want the comprehensive view, like talking to multiple professors about the same issue. My view on Wikipedia comes from the foundation that, if the accuracy of some information is unknown, the information is worthless (a judgment backed by theory, though most people on the street disagree these days). I don't know the accuracy of Wikipedia information; I don't know which information in an article is correct and which is incorrect; I don't know which is complete and which omits essential details; I don't know when it's consistent or inconsistent. I have experience editing Wikipedia and that supports my POV; also, when I've chased down citations for claims, they often have been completely falsified (the citation says nothing of the sort) or are misleading. In other words, I think Wikipedia is the epitome of online misinformation. Most disagree, I know; my guess is that they don't want to lose their treasured resource and habits.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  It's the difference between trying to be correct in one go, versus having a process in place that leads to eventual correctness. Each has its own upsides and downsides. Wars can be fought between people who prefer the one over the other. ;-)
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I think that's one difference in process, but it's not clear that the latter process leads to eventual accuracy (which is more than correctness), or that the user knows if it's accurate when they read it. As I said above, unknown accuracy makes information useless.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      Possibly you're using hyper-specific definitions of accuracy and correctness. How does the scientific process factor in, according to you?
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        By accuracy, I mean the 3 Cs: Correctness, Completeness, Consistency. It's a good checklist for any purpose. > How does the scientific process factor in, according to you? Do you mean, how do I reconcile my idea with the scientific process, which is "a process ... that leads to eventual correctness" (if successful)? Scientists don't say, 'this theory is 100% accurate". They say: 'Here's my claim; others say differently about X, and I disagree because Y. ... And in conclusion, here's where we are: we know this, what we don't know that, we should next look here and also there.' Their work is process, not product; they say, 'this paper is one step in the process.' Wikipedia can't say those things; due to its process, it lacks an expert mind to look at itself (maybe an AI some day!). Wikipedia is a product (even if also a process); it says: 'This page is accurate', or at least 'you should use the information on this page as if it's accurate'. It doesn't know how accurate the page is, or how accurate different parts of the page are. You don't know either; any part could be nonsense, could be true, could be misleading; omissions could mislead badly. Information with unknown accuracy is useless. (Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38813185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38813185 ) Nobody seems to want to think about that. Talking about accuracy disturbs the head-in-the-sand safety people have found in the post-truth moment. Undermining Wikipedia does the same; they don't want to think about it. "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." I need to make it funny.

wolverine876 3y ago

> How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia? My POV: Britannica article often are written by experts, sometimes the leaders in their fields (in the past they even had authors such as Albert Einstein). There's an editorial process to ensure accuracy by its formal meaning, the three C's: Correct, Complete, and Consistent. Also, the writing is often exceptional - sharp, expertly informed, with personality, like a top-notch professor. The downside is that the primary authors sometimes appear to have written decades ago (budget issues?) and then the articles were updated by editors. Also, while articles are internally consistent, Britannica is sometimes inconsistent between articles; for example, the article on hominids might say something slightly different about the evidence for primate evolution than the article on great apes; however, that is the case with every large reference work I've seen - you need to read a few articles if you want the comprehensive view, like talking to multiple professors about the same issue. My view on Wikipedia comes from the foundation that, if the accuracy of some information is unknown, the information is worthless (a judgment backed by theory, though most people on the street disagree these days). I don't know the accuracy of Wikipedia information; I don't know which information in an article is correct and which is incorrect; I don't know which is complete and which omits essential details; I don't know when it's consistent or inconsistent. I have experience editing Wikipedia and that supports my POV; also, when I've chased down citations for claims, they often have been completely falsified (the citation says nothing of the sort) or are misleading. In other words, I think Wikipedia is the epitome of online misinformation. Most disagree, I know; my guess is that they don't want to lose their treasured resource and habits.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
It's the difference between trying to be correct in one go, versus having a process in place that leads to eventual correctness. Each has its own upsides and downsides. Wars can be fought between people who prefer the one over the other. ;-)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I think that's one difference in process, but it's not clear that the latter process leads to eventual accuracy (which is more than correctness), or that the user knows if it's accurate when they read it. As I said above, unknown accuracy makes information useless.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    Possibly you're using hyper-specific definitions of accuracy and correctness. How does the scientific process factor in, according to you?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      By accuracy, I mean the 3 Cs: Correctness, Completeness, Consistency. It's a good checklist for any purpose. > How does the scientific process factor in, according to you? Do you mean, how do I reconcile my idea with the scientific process, which is "a process ... that leads to eventual correctness" (if successful)? Scientists don't say, 'this theory is 100% accurate". They say: 'Here's my claim; others say differently about X, and I disagree because Y. ... And in conclusion, here's where we are: we know this, what we don't know that, we should next look here and also there.' Their work is process, not product; they say, 'this paper is one step in the process.' Wikipedia can't say those things; due to its process, it lacks an expert mind to look at itself (maybe an AI some day!). Wikipedia is a product (even if also a process); it says: 'This page is accurate', or at least 'you should use the information on this page as if it's accurate'. It doesn't know how accurate the page is, or how accurate different parts of the page are. You don't know either; any part could be nonsense, could be true, could be misleading; omissions could mislead badly. Information with unknown accuracy is useless. (Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38813185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38813185 ) Nobody seems to want to think about that. Talking about accuracy disturbs the head-in-the-sand safety people have found in the post-truth moment. Undermining Wikipedia does the same; they don't want to think about it. "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." I need to make it funny.