|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pangit
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: Puet mo.
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wikipedia can, and will, constantly be changed. That undoubtedly makes it completely unreliable because of the permanent flux. Of course Wikipedia is a forum: everyone's inputting and revising. It's simply policed better. You're not being sceptical enough. Who wants a source that's continually revised? We want facts to be fixed in stone, immovable type, not to be erased and true for all eternity.
Why are you putting Wikipedia on such a pedestal? Why put anything but the unchangeable truth on a pedestal? Who, exactly, are these professors that administer Wikipedia? Who cares? Most of academia doesn't. That's what matters when you're referencing it as a source. If your prof is okay with it, fine, but he'll be a minority for a good amount of time. The majority of academics will think that it's not credible. That's what matters - authoritativeness in the academic circle. Wikipedia simply has not achieved this and it will take some time for it to gain the respect where it matters, but it will still be that chaotic mass that you should be afraid to dip into. Truth must be immutable.
For the entries that have been locked from editing - the Kerry and Bush entries, as you stated: they are no longer wikis, per se. They have been fixated and pinned down. They are reliable. They are, however, sullied by the name of their source - the chaos of Wikipedia.
There is good reason to fear Wikipedia because the truth it presents can be changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like this:
| Quote: |
2005.01.26
12-year-old Finds Errors in Encyclopedia Britannica.
Just what are you putting in there? - Here's something I find rather interesting in this day and age of vast knowledge literally at our fingertips.
Alexandra Blair reports for Times Online that Lucian George, age 12, discovered not one error in the famous Encyclopedia Britannica, but three errors.
The errors are:
BELOVEHSKAYA FOREST
vol 2, p 83, col 3
Encyclopaedia Britannica states that it lies in the Bialystok, Suwalki and Lomza provinces of Poland. Since 1998 Suwalki and Lomza provinces do not exist, but when they did the forest was only part of Bialystok
EUROPEAN BISON
vol 25, p 934, col 2
Encyclopaedia Britannica states that it may only be found in the Bialowieza Forest in Poland. In fact herds also inhabit the southern mountains of Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, eastern Slovakia and the Romanian Carpathians
CHOCHIM
vol 25, p 944, col 1
A town on the Dniester. Encyclopaedia Britannica states that it is in Moldova. It is in Ukraine
Well, mistakes happen. According to Blair the first issue of the Britannica said California was an island. |
Actually I'm being quite skeptical enough - the only difference is that my skepticism doesn't only apply to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is the first to admit that nothing is perfect though:
| Quote: |
| For every error in EB noted here, of course, there are likely dozens of mistakes just as egregious in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, this page should also serve as a reminder to Wikipedians of one important advantage that the open nature of Wikipedia gives it over proprietary encyclopedias: given sufficiently many readers, every error will be spotted and corrected by someone. |
Here's the text from the page "Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia":
| Quote: |
History
[edit]
Birth year of Abraham Bosse
Research deemed recent at the beginning of 2004 has uncovered that Abraham Bosse was born around 1604, not 1602, as previously thought. As of May 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica still gives 1602 as his birth year.
[edit]
Education of Thomas Bradwardine
Britannica's article says that Thomas Bradwardine, the Archbishop of Canterbury studied at Merton College, Oxford. However, he studied at Balliol College, Oxford moving to Merton subsequently on a fellowship - as confirmed by correspondence with Balliol and by reference to the respective college websites.
[edit]
Manuel Castells
In its brief entry on sociologist Manuel Castells EB claims that he is an American. Wikipedia notes that Manuel Castells was born in Spain, and has lived in France and the US. (I've submitted this as an error of fact to EB six months ago - still no response or correction.)
* Should probably change "six months ago" to a date, so it remains accurate... -- Timwi 12:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
* Did EB state he was born in America? It's quite possible he has American citizenship. Please clarify.
* No such entry exists in the 2004 DVD (URS) edition, or in the online version. Article seems to have been dropped. Although in the DVD it says in a reference page for Castells, that he is an "Am. socio.", but this is not mentioned in the online version.
[edit]
Nanking - History
-Britannica's Nanking, History article states:
Nanking?under the name of Chien-yeh?emerged as the political and cultural centre of Southeast China during the period of the Three Kingdoms, when Sun Chien and his son Sun Ch'üan made it the capital of the kingdom of Wu from 229 to 280.
Sun Jian never settled in Nanking; he was always governor of Changsha when he was a Chinese warlord (He was killed by Liu Biao's army while he was still governor of Changsha). It was Sun Quan who moved the capital of his state there in 212, following the advice of a dying Zhang Hong. There was no Wu state back then, because Sun Quan did not crown himself emperor yet.
By the way, I am using Pinyin, while Britannica still uses Wade-Giles. Here is the translation of the Wade-Giles in this Britannica article to Pinyin:
Chien-yeh - Jianye Sun Chien - Sun Jian (156-192) Sun Ch'uan - Sun Quan (182-252)
* Shouldn't that be "Transliteration"? --JHCC
[edit]
Invention of the Safety Razor
EB wrongly credits King Camp Gillette with the invention of the safety razor. The safety razor was invented in the mid 1870's by the Kampfe brothers long before Gillette's first razor.
[edit]
Submarine Incident in Korea
EB gives the year of the submarine incident near Kangnung as 1997 rather than 1996. But then, I think this isn't covered in Wikipedia at all... yet.
[edit]
Henry VIII and Leviticus
According to Britannica's entry on Henry VIII, he resolved to appeal to the Pope that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had been against divine law under "the biblical injunction (Lev.) forbidding marriage with a brother's widow". The entries in Leviticus both forbid a man sexual relations (18 v.v. 16) and give the promise of a childless marriage (20 v.v. 21) with his brother's wife. The inclusion or exclusion of a brother's widow in any interpretation is POV. Under Ecclesiastical law at the time of Henry, a man could in fact marry his brother's widow if the marriage was not consummated. In reality, Henry unsuccessfully lobbied the Pope for an annulment of the marriage claiming that Catherine had lied when she said she hadn't consummated her marriage with Arthur. Dainamo
[edit]
Tudor Vladimirescu
According to Britannica [1] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9075616), Romanian revolutionary leader Tudor Vladimirescu was assassinated on June 7 instead of May 27, the real date.
The facts that these dates differ by 10 days and that the event in question takes place in Romania in the 19th Century suggest that the discrepancy is due to the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. See Gregorian_Calendar and Old Style and New Style dates. Both Britannica and Wikipedia should specify which calendar is referred to. 64.230.161.79
Fixed in Wikipedia.  Bogdan | Talk 12:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Birthname of William J. Clinton, 42nd US President
Britannica lists the birthname of William J. Clinton (Bill Clinton) as "William Jefferson Blythe IV" [2] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9003019). It has been confirmed by the Clinton Library [3] (http://www.clintonlibrary.gov) that the correct birthname is "William Jefferson Blythe III". Refer to respective Talk thread.
[edit]
Sheila Scott's Birthday
According to Britannica she was born on April 27, 1927. The Oxford DNB, based on her birth certificate, confirms her birth date was actually April 27, 1922.
lots of issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lotsofissues) | leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lotsofissues&action=edit§ion=new) 08:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Math
[edit]
Archimedean Solids
EB does not contain a definition or list of Archimedean solids. Britannica Student Encyclopedia contains the following definition:
in geometry, any one of 13 solids whose faces are all convex polyhedrons; first described by ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes; faces of one solid can represent more than one kind of polyhedron but its polyhedral angles (angles formed at point where 3 or more faces meet) must all be equal.
This is, to put it mildly, absolute horse crap.
* Really? To me, this sounds a lot like the "vertex-uniform but not face-uniform" definition given in Archimedean solid. --Esrogs 21:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
No it does not. For example failure to include the word "regular" before polyhedron is pretty rubbish, really, friend. --(talk)AndrewCates 14:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
In the first place, do you think that the faces of a solid can be polyhedrons? Shouldn't it be "polygons"? --Fibonacci 04:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Also true. But I don't agree about determinants above. There are a number of equivalent definitions and I think that the stipulation on different rows and columns above works although it is not easy to execute --AndrewCates 11:33, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
It would work if it were properly stated. Easyness is not an issue here. And please, the comments for the determinant should be there, not here. --Fibonacci 04:35, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
Big O
Big O notation, also called "Landau's symbol", is now common in mathematics and computer science. It compares the speed of growth of functions. It was first described in 1892 by the German number theorists Paul Bachmann and Edmund Landau; reference to it is not found in EB.
[edit]
Cauchy sequences
In the algebra article, subsection "Completion of fields", Cauchy sequences are defined as follows:
A sequence {xn} = {x1, x2, x3,...} of elements xn of F is called a Cauchy sequence (for the valuation ��) when, given ��> 0, there is an integer N such that the value of �� at the difference of two elements with subscripts sufficiently large is less than ��.
This is formally correct but unnecessarily complicated: the inclusion of the variable N makes no sense unless it is also mentioned somewhere after the words "such that". There is an appropriate way to do that, at which EB makes no attempt.
They should have used general 'distance of two elements' or 'absolute value of the difference...' because otherwise it may be a negative number. --AC
".. the value of �� at the difference of two elements ..."; it sounds a bit like nonsense to me. --Fibonacci 03:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Determinants
Under "determinant", EB says
Designating any element of the matrix by the symbol Arc (the subscript r identifies the row and c the column), the determinant is evaluated by finding the sum of n! terms, each of which is the product of the coefficient (-1)r + c and n elements, no two from the same row or column.
This is incorrect; it is a strange mixture of the Leibniz formula and the formula to develop a matrix along a row or column. See determinant.
* This seems to be correct. Consider this excerpt from determinant:
"For a general n-by-n matrix, the determinant was defined by Gottfried Leibniz with what is now known as the Leibniz formula:
\det(A) = \sum_{\sigma \in S_n} \operatorname{sgn}(\sigma) \prod_{i=1}^n A_{i, \sigma(i)}
The sum is computed over all permutations �� of the numbers {1,...,n} and sgn(��) denotes the signature of the permutation ��: +1 if �� is an even permutation and -1 if it is odd. See symmetric group for an explanation of even/odd permutations."
Isn't the number of permutations n! as claimed above, and isn't the power of (-1) part the same as the even odd part? Isn't it also true that no two elements in a term are from the same row or column? I don't see the contradiction. --Esrogs 20:58, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the definition given is correct not incorrect --(talk to)AndrewCates 14:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
No, it can't be correct. If the elements are "not from the same row or column", which numbers r and s are chosen?
And for Esrogs' argument, no, the power of (-1) part is not the same, unless you show that r+s is even if and only if �� is an even permutation. --Fibonacci 02:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
* Of course the (-1)r + c is incorrect. For example it gives +1 for the odd permutation (2 3) for n=3. The elements are A11, A23, and A32. --Zero0000 07:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
Epimenides paradox
In "number game" under "logical paradoxes" in EB it is claimed that the statement "All Cretans are liars", if uttered by a Cretan, is self-contradictory. This is false; see Epimenides paradox for the correction. Axel Boldt sent a letter to the math editor of EB to point this out and received an answer three months later saying that his "sources" disagreed and considered the text to be correct.
* According to the "correction," the statement is "necessarily false" if liar is taken to mean someone who always lies, so saying that it is a self-contradictory seems to be correct (though possibly not from the exact same line of reasoning assumed in EB) --Esrogs 20:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)~
so it all depends on whether this rather unusual definition is clearly given? --AndrewCates 14:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)
No way! See the Wikipedia article Epimenides paradox. No matter what definition is used, there will be no contradiction, mainly because he said "All Cretans", and there are other Cretans, who may or may not be liars. --Fibonacci 01:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Right. Suppose Alice of Crete says, 'All Cretans are liars'. The solution to the "paradox" is that Alice of Crete is a liar, but Bob of Crete is not a liar (i.e. Alice lied, since some Cretans are not liars). --Tetromino 20:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But if Alice lied, and some Cretans are not liars, then maybe Alice didn't lie... Therein lies the paradox. --202.74.211.55 06:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Logarithmic spiral
EB's article on spiral suffers from severe problems in the layout of mathematical formulae, at least in the online version. The formula for the logarithmic spiral is given as exp �� cot ��, which should be exp(�� cot ��). See logarithmic spiral.
Where �� is what? --Fibonacci 03:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
NP problems
In "NP-complete problem" you can find the statement
A problem is called NP if its solution (if one exists) can be guessed and verified in polynomial time;
The insert "(if one exists)" makes clear that the author does not understand that only decision problems belong to the class NP. Every instance of every problem in NP has a solution: it is either YES or NO. Only YES answers need to be verified quickly. See Complexity classes P and NP.
Arguably, they weren't actually talking about the Yes/No solution to the NP problem, but a solution to the underlying problem (which in our lectures was called a "certificate"). Example boolean satisfiability: Whether an expression is satisfiable is a Yes/No question, but if the answer is "Yes", you'd really like to know the truth values that satisfy the expression. It is my understanding that a problem is indeed NP if you can verify such a certificate in polynomial time. -- Timwi 13:04, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't resolve the fundamental mistake: the insert implies that a problem may be in NP even if a solution does not exist. This cannot be: if a solution really didn't exist, the problem would be undecidable, or at least only partially decidable, but certainly not in NP. You're right when you say that a problem is in NP if it has a certificate verifiable in polynomial time, but a problem without a solution has no certificate at all. (NO answers have certificates too, but these need not be verifiable in polynomial time.) The author of the sentence might indeed have been thinking about the underlying problem (either conflating "not satisfiable" for SAT or "YES" answers without an accompanying certificate with "no solution") -- that explains it, but doesn't correct it. As an aside, the sentence is also sloppy when it states that the solution "can be guessed and verfied in polynomial time": the author means "can be guessed [nondeterministically] in polynomial time and [has a certificate that] can be verified in polynomial time", not (as might easily be read) "can be guessed and then verified in polynomial time". Not wrong, but not award-winning either. --JRM 11:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Guessed in polynomial time, and then verified in polynomial time? Please forgive my ignorance, but, wouldn't that be P instead of NP? --Fibonacci 03:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, it is correct with the right interpretation of "guess". What this really states is that one can make a guess in polynomial time and then proceed with the computation verifying in some way if the guess was correct (all in polynomial time). It does not mean that it should guess the correct solution on the first try, just that it can make one guess in polynomial time. The core property of NP is that the time the computation uses is defined as the time the longest computation path a guess can cause uses. If one wants a "realistic" view on how a device that calculates this works it actually makes all possible guesses at once and then proceeds with all the following calculations in parallel, when all computations paths are done it will answer "yes" if and only if one path answered "yes". I suspect that the wording about solutions existing is really meant to talk about decision problems about existence (which is after all what most decision problems come down to), it is still not quite right to say that a NP problem is always solved by guessing the solution and verifying it. Sure some guess about some property of the problem is made, it is far from clear that it must (or even that it can) always be the something one should call the solution.
[edit]
Numbers vs. Numerals
In the "number system" article, EB exhibits a deep confusion about the difference between numerals and numbers (see numeral system and number). The most egregious sentence is
Note that only in base 10 do the coefficients translate directly to numerical value without requiring a multiplication.
* Please provide a correct version of the sentence --Esrogs 20:37, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Not mine but:
1) Replace multiplication with conversion: you do not change the base of a number by mulitplying it by something.
--(talk)AndrewCates 15:19, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Alternatively:
1) Note that only in base 10 do the coefficients represent the numerical values we are familiar with, since everyday numeral systems are base 10.
Which is trivial. --Fibonacci 03:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Poincaré Conjecture
The EB entry on Henri Poincaré gives the following description of the Poincaré conjecture: "Poincaré asked if a three-dimensional manifold in which every curve can be shrunk to a point is topologically equivalent to a three-dimensional sphere (a solid ball). This problem (now known as the Poincaré conjecture)..."
It would seem that EB is equating a 3-sphere with a solid ball, which is completely wrong. The actual entry on the conjecture is part of the topology entry and is correct. Not a surprise really, since the topology entry was written by RH Bing.
Wikipedia's entries on Poincaré and his conjecture make no such mistake, or any mathematical mistakes, for that matter (as of now).
[edit]
Real numbers
In the article about "real number", it is claimed that
The real numbers can be characterized by the important mathematical property of completeness, meaning that every set that has an upper bound has a smallest such bound
This is incorrect, since it doesn't take the empty set into account, which has an upper bound but not a smallest upper bound.
The class of real numbers is generally extended to include the first transfinite number
This is not correct. In integration and measure theory, the real numbers are sometimes extended by adding two symbols, +�� and -��, neither of which is a transfinite number. A transfinite number is either a cardinal number of an infinite set, or an ordinal number of an infinite well-ordered set. See real number and extended real number line.
Should also say "... every subset that has ...". --Fibonacci 03:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Transfinite numbers
The entry about "transfinite number" in EB claims that aleph-one is the cardinality of the real numbers. This is in fact neither provable nor disprovable in the currently accepted formalization of set theory; see cardinality and continuum hypothesis for the full story.
* Are you sure about this? As far as I know, it is well possible to show that aleph-one is the cardinality of the real numbers; the problem posed by the continuum hypothesis is if there is anything "in between" aleph-zero and aleph-one.
* Wikipedia is correct here. Aleph-0 is the smallest infinite cardinal. Aleph-1 is the next-smallest. There is nothing in between. ZFC can neither prove nor disprove that aleph-1 is the cardinality of the real numbers.
o Thanks. I had a misconception about the definition of the alephs.
[edit]
Science
[edit]
Crookes Radiometer
EB states that Crookes Radiometer rotates the direction it does because of pressure differences. This is false. Actually it rotates due to the effect of the gas molecules on the edges of the vanes.
Is it false? The Einstein effect on the edges of the vanes is a pressure difference. The Reynolds effect of thermal transpiration is also a pressure difference. 13:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
Leap years
EB claims in its leap year article that years divisible by 4000 may be non-leap years. This is in fact not an official rule and would not increase the calendar's accuracy. See leap year.
[edit]
Lungs and swim bladders
In its article on fish, EB claims
Most bony fish have a swim bladder, a gas-filled organ used to adjust swimming depth. In a few species the swim bladder has evolved into a lunglike respiratory organ, enabling these fishes to breathe air.
This was the view of Charles Darwin; nowadays it is generally accepted that primitive lungs came first and swim bladders evolved from them. See e.g. [4] (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb2002/1014304962.Ev.r.html), [5] (http://courses.washington.edu/vertebra/451/notes/bony_fish_introduction.htm).
I think your assuption "that it is generally accept" is false. Richard Dawkins agrees with Darwin on this. I would suggest it is still open to debate.
In en:The Ancestor's Tale Dawkins' newest book, he says that swim bladders evolved from primitive lungs.
[edit]
Olbers' paradox
The EB article about "Olbers' paradox" offers a resolution involving average lifetimes of stars which does not make sense. See Olbers paradox.
[edit]
Speed of X-rays in glass
Under "refractive index" in EB, the definition of the refractive index does not clarify the crucial distinction between phase velocity and signal velocity; it is stated that the velocity of x-rays in glass is higher than the velocity of x-rays in vacuum. This is true for the phase velocity, but the speed with which information can be transmitted is not higher in glass than in vacuum.
I agree that that is pretty serious if correctly represented --AndrewCates 15:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
Sperm storage
In the entry on "Semen", EB writes:
Sperm mature in the epididymis; they then pass through a long tube called the ductus, or vas deferens to another storage area, the ampulla. [...] During the process of ejaculation, liquids from the prostate gland and seminal vesicles are added
In fact, the vas deferens propels sperm directly from the epididymis to the outside during ejaculation. Sperm is stored before the ejaculation in the epididymis, not in the ampulla. They describe it correctly in their article on "Ejaculation". See also Ejaculation and vas deferens.
[edit]
Statcoulombs
The article on "Electric charge" claims that 1 Coulomb equals 3 billion statcoulombs. This is incorrect.
* The original quote is:
One coulomb of electric charge equals 3,000,000,000 esu, or one-tenth emu.
Ok, so the exact number is 2,997,961,386.257345. Perhaps they should have added roughly 3,000,000,000 esu. --Cantus
Which could be pretty serious if you were relying on it! --Soapy
Sure, this is nitpicking, but it is wrong, and it helps make the point that even the most "authoritative" general reference still contains errors.
[edit]
Uncertainty Principle
EB has two articles about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: one about the principle itself and another one inside the quantum mechanics treatment. Unfortunately, the two articles give different formulas: one uses h/2�� and the other h/4��. Furthermore, they never make clear what exactly is meant by "uncertainty".
* The latter is true. I'm not sure why they would have the first one in there. The only non-editing mistake explanation I can think of is if they took some specific example. The principle is that ��x ��p �� h/4��, so it is possible to pick specific examples where ��x ��p = h/2��. Still sounds fishy. User:laurascudder
[edit]
Zymase
In the article Organic Compounds/Alcohols/Ethanol, EB claims that yeast secrete an enzyme called "zymase" to convert sugar into alcohol. In fact there is no such secreted enzyme; the conversion is much more complicated and takes place within the yeast cell. See alcohol dehydrogenase.
[edit]
Other topics
[edit]
Fenghuang ("Phoenix")
EB completely sees fenghuang as female (EB article (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=389618)). But the accurate (as defined in all non-children Chinese dictionaries) and still popular Chinese mythology says that fenghuang is a species with both males and females.
[edit]
Deconstruction and method
The first sentence of EB's article on deconstruction calls it a "Method of philosophical and literary analysis." This directly contradicts Derrida's famous "Letter to a Japanese Friend", which states clearly that "Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed into one." [6] (http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/letter.html) (Deconstruction, Wikipedia's article, is currently [Feb 2004] self-contradictory on this topic.)
I'd rather say that Deconstruction would have been self-contradictory if Derrida had not said such a thing; but obviously, Derrida's statement should not prescribe how we talk about it nowadays. — mark ✎ 15:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Hungarian Polish
According to a press release (http://corporate.britannica.com/press/releases/chinese.html) Britannica made in February 2004, they are publishing a version in "Hungarian Polish". A new conlang perhaps?
* I think they're just missing a comma.
[edit]
Belarusian language
The entry (I saw it in 2000 or 2001 editions, needs to be checked):
"Belarusian also spelled BELORUSSIAN, or BYELORUSSIAN, also called WHITE RUTHENIAN, or WHITE RUSSIAN, Belarusian Beloruska, East Slavic language that is the major language of Belarus. Belarusian forms the link between the Russian and Ukrainian languages, since it has dialects transitional to them both. Although two dialect areas exist, standard Belarusian is based on the dialect of Minsk, the capital city of Belarus. The language contains many Polish loanwords and is written in a form of the Cyrillic alphabet. An older form of Belarusian was used by the Lithuanians as the official language of administration during the 14th century, when they were in control of the area of present-day Belarus."
I couldn't understand the purpose of this word "Beloruska" implanted into the English-language text until I looked up the entries for other languages. In the article on Bulgarian language it said "bulgarski ezik," so I figured here we should have the name of our own language in our own tongue. This should then have read "bielaruskaja mova". To the best of my knowledge, "Beloruska" is the adjective "Belarusian" in Bulgarian and some other Slavic languages.
More mistakes or misconceptions in this short but error-ridden entry (http://www.pravapis.org/art_brit.asp)
[edit]
Matsu Island[s]
Matsu is
1. the alternate (and now rare) name of an island (the Nankan Island), and
2. the official name of a micro-archipelago of 20 islands, which contains Nankan
However, EB chose to give only an article on the first (single island), thereby misguiding the reader into thinking that Matsu of the Republic of China is one island (Nankan). (See Matsu Island (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=52689&tocid=0&query=matsu&ct=))
However, the country controls the entire mini-archipelago of the Matsu Islands as a county (called Lienchiang). Although Nankan is the largest of the Matsu Islands, when referring to Matsu, one usually speaks of the entire archipelago. Metonymy, in this case, ignores other integral parts of Matsu and provides an incomplete picture of Lienchiang County.
[edit]
Quemoy Island[s]
Same problem as Matsu (see above). See also Quemoy.
[edit]
Frank Zappa
According to a post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129854&cid=10830802) on Slashdot, Britannica states (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9383274) that Frank Zappa was originally named "Francis", while the Wikipedia article is consistent with Zappa's autobiography in stating that he was christened "Frank" and was never named "Francis".
* In the Britannica 2005 Ultimate Reference Suite, Frank Zappa's full name is given as 'Frank Vincent Zappa'. I can see no mention of 'Francis' in the text. -JonB.
* But the Britannica Concise Online Edition given in the link does in fact state his first name as 'Francis'. So Britannica has some diversity in its various editions.
|
The other thing Wikipedia has that no other Encyclopedia does, of course, is 139 other languages. Some are more complete than others, but if I'm looking for info on a small Swedish town I can click on a small link in the corner to read the same article (much larger) in Swedish. That feature is something that a unilingual encyclopedia will never be able to have.
Two articles on the city of Bod�� in Norway, compare the sizes in English and Norwegian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bod%F8
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bod%C3%B8
(even though the Norwegian Wikipedia is over 20 times smaller) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's some more:
| Quote: |
| The German computing magazine c't performed a comparison of Brockhaus Premium, Microsoft Encarta, and Wikipedia in October 2004: . Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In overall score, Wikipedia was rated 3.6 out of 5 points ("B-"), Brockhaus Premium 3.3, and Microsoft Encarta 3.1.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Kurzidim) In an analysis of online encyclopedias, Indiana University professors Emigh and Herring wrote that "Wikipedia improves on traditional information sources, especially for the content areas in which it is strong, such as technology and current events."[39] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pangit
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: Puet mo.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
Actually I'm being quite skeptical enough - the only difference is that my skepticism doesn't only apply to Wikipedia.
|
You make a baseless assumption, implying that I don't apply skepticism myself. I always use cross-checked multiple sources. If I cite a quote, I make sure that it's the same in previous and subsequent editions and follow up on my material. If I'm stating a fact, it's after I've checked numerous texts, presenting conflicting viewpoints, for its authenticity, validity, and reliability.
| mithridates wrote: |
The other thing Wikipedia has that no other Encyclopedia does, of course, is 139 other languages. Some are more complete than others, but if I'm looking for info on a small Swedish town I can click on a small link in the corner to read the same article (much larger) in Swedish. That feature is something that a unilingual encyclopedia will never be able to have.
Two articles on the city of Bod�� in Norway, compare the sizes in English and Norwegian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bod%F8
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bod%C3%B8
(even though the Norwegian Wikipedia is over 20 times smaller) |
Irrelevant when your intended audience only reads one language. What's with the linguistic fetish? Don't table it when you're discussing reliablity of sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is that it? "I'm skeptical too" + "Don't be such a polyglot"?
Okay, you're skeptical too. By the way, this
| Quote: |
| Actually I'm being quite skeptical enough - the only difference is that my skepticism doesn't only apply to Wikipedia. |
comment wasn't directed at you anyway, but I'm glad you cross-check your sources.
Also, not only are monoglots a small percentage of the world's population, but even a person who has forgotten much of his French may still be able to look for facts in an article. There are also free translation services that can help out as well.
The only important thing to remember is that no source is perfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pangit
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: Puet mo.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Is that it? "I'm skeptical too" + "Don't be such a polyglot"? |
And your point being "Wikipedia is good, hurrah!"?
Okay, it's good. You really wanted that concession, didn't you?
| mithridates wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Actually I'm being quite skeptical enough - the only difference is that my skepticism doesn't only apply to Wikipedia. |
comment wasn't directed at you anyway, but I'm glad you cross-check your sources. |
What difference could have been implied other than that between you and I? You were addressing my post, weren't you? That comment was vague, at best, insulting at worst.
| mithridates wrote: |
Also, not only are monoglots a small percentage of the world's population, but even a person who has forgotten much of his French may still be able to look for facts in an article. There are also free translation services that can help out as well.
The only important thing to remember is that no source is perfect. |
Actually, I happen to be a multiple language speaker, myself. That doesn't mean I'm going to turn in tract upon tract written in numerous languages. Most writers only care about a particular audience. It all depends on the subject of discussion and the necessity to reach for sources in other languages. A good percentage of the time, it's not necessary, and it's certainly not relevant to the discussion of one source's reliability. Wikipidea is written in different languages - great. Does that make it even more authoritative? Maybe to someone who cares about that kind of stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mith, how much does Wikipedia pay you for the PR work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to see this point addressed though, as it pertains to quality of the work.
| Quote: |
| The German computing magazine c't performed a comparison of Brockhaus Premium, Microsoft Encarta, and Wikipedia in October 2004: . Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In overall score, Wikipedia was rated 3.6 out of 5 points ("B-"), Brockhaus Premium 3.3, and Microsoft Encarta 3.1.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Kurzidim) In an analysis of online encyclopedias, Indiana University professors Emigh and Herring wrote that "Wikipedia improves on traditional information sources, especially for the content areas in which it is strong, such as technology and current events."[39] |
I suppose it doesn't matter all that much if people agree with me on this, but the comment about Wikipedia being 'dangerous' needed to be responded to. Anyway, for some reason I get really excited over space and Wikipedia and apologies Pangit if I was rude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pangit
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: Puet mo.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
I would like to see this point addressed though, as it pertains to quality of the work.
| Quote: |
| The German computing magazine c't performed a comparison of Brockhaus Premium, Microsoft Encarta, and Wikipedia in October 2004: . Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In overall score, Wikipedia was rated 3.6 out of 5 points ("B-"), Brockhaus Premium 3.3, and Microsoft Encarta 3.1.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Kurzidim) In an analysis of online encyclopedias, Indiana University professors Emigh and Herring wrote that "Wikipedia improves on traditional information sources, especially for the content areas in which it is strong, such as technology and current events."[39] |
I suppose it doesn't matter all that much if people agree with me on this, but the comment about Wikipedia being 'dangerous' needed to be responded to. Anyway, for some reason I get really excited over space and Wikipedia and apologies Pangit if I was rude. |
Thanks for the apologies. I was being pretty antagonistic, myself. I should be gracious, too. Sorry.
Addressing the comparison: I can't vouch for Brockhaus, but my opinion of Encarta is better left unsaid. Maybe not: to put it nicely, I simply don't like it. Given the choice of Encarta over Britannica, I'd go with Britannica any day, as would a lot of other people simply because it's a much more widely recognized name and has a better reputation - it's a big big name.
I feel the comparison didn't really cover anything of real importance. Furthermore, it's coming from a computing magazine. I don't know anything about the magazine. The editor may have been motivated by some agenda. Does the mag push Linux, or Unix, too? I think the important thing to the magazine is that Wikipedia is free, online, it lets users edit entries, etc., not so much that it's a reliable resource. Comparing Wikipedia to Encarta and Brockhaus isn't much of a feat. Is there a magazine for lexicographers that has something to say about all this?
Britannica online is pretty unshakeable for the time being. They most probably edit the online edition, if you're concerned about the information being up to date. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay. I can think of quite a few places on the English Wikipedia that still have gaps in them, especially the years BC; I've been translating a lot of them into our Wikipedia and every 5th year or so has no info whatsoever and I don't think anyone's paying attention to those pages. It'll be at 600 000 articles around tomorrow and goes up 30 000 a month; apparently later on they're planning to go around to all the more or less completed articles to freeze them (though still leave the discussion page open and administrators will be able to make changes) and make them more or less permanent.
Here's the English page for c't: http://www.heise.de/ct/english/ but I don't know anything about them except that they have a circulation of near 400 000.
Ah, I would never trust a Wikipedia under 50 000 though. The one we have is just over 4000 and I've been writing half of the content myself recently. Who knows if that king of Egypt who I wrote in really was born in 402 BC or not.  Certainly not me.
I noticed that the Japanese and Korean Wiktionaries are doing a good job keeping a NPOV even though the debate under the articles is quite ferocious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
