The kind of highly accurate information you would have found on the former site of Wikipedia’s president Jimmy Wales.
The Register – 23rd March 2006:
Nature magazine has some tough questions to answer after it let its Wikipedia fetish get the better of its responsibilities to reporting science. The Encyclopedia Britannica has published a devastating response to Nature’s December comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica, and accuses the journal of misrepresenting its own evidence.
Where the evidence didn’t fit, says Britannica, Nature’s news team just made it up. Britannica has called on the journal to repudiate the report, which was put together by its news team.
Nature sent only misleading fragments of some Britannica articles to the reviewers, sent extracts of the children’s version and Britannica’s “book of the year” to others, and in one case, simply stitched together bits from different articles and inserted its own material, passing it off as a single Britannica entry.
“Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit.”
We thought it pretty odd, back in December, to discover a popular science journal recommending readers support less accurate information. It’s even stranger to find this institution apparently violating fundamental principles of empiricism.
Download Britannica’s full response to Nature in PDF here.
Download Nature’s extremely brief and evasive response to the response here, once again in PDF.
John has written about the problems with wikis in his PC Magazine column.
Britannica or Wikipedia
I find it strange that I can find more information with google than with either Britannica or Wikipedia.
Is what I find with google as accurate? Who cares, with google we can type in the most obscure information and get something back.
I’m a big fan of WikiPedia but the Nature article seemed fishy to me, too.
How could Wikipedia NOT be very uneven? Like anything on the web, it is only as good as the Average Joes who create it… meaning that it can be both amazingly good and stinking rotten bad.
In my observation, Wikipedia is best at very narrow articles where a couple of obsessed advocates are taking care of the page. And there are THOUSANDS of such pages on Wikipedia.
what is with all these ugly girls with big fake boobs????
show some good looking girls… boob size be damned!
>>what is with all these ugly girls with big fake boobs????
Compared to some of the freaks of “nature” (??) that have appeared on this blog in the past few days, this one is like abreath of fresh air.
Britannica may be more accurate, but be honest. When was the last time you even saw a Britanica?
OK enough already.
John, I enjoy your articles and listen to TWIT but this is getting creepy.
Your entering the realm of “dirty old man”
Brian, OK enough? That’s not my post. Please read this blog primer on how to read a blog. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/primer/blogprimer1.htm
While I edit and control the blog I give the contributing editors a lot of leeway with their posts. Many feel obliged to put up a girls pic now and then. (More now than then). Please learn how to read a blog before commenting on the posts. It’s not that difficult.
well i for one am just glad that neo-conservatives can settle this dispute once and for all with their “intelligent design” ideas.
brittanica and wikipedia are both wrong — god did it, not science.
how simple a world it is once you just give up on humanity.
Brian, I’m sorry but I just don’t get your complaint. The picture I chose is directly related to the point I was trying to make: that Wikipedia’s president Jimmy Wales is a former part-time pornographer. Does that clear things up?
SHOCKING! This will be ALL over the news! Keep watching!
A company that makes a product is upset that another product, that’s much cheaper, is reviewed to be better! SHOCKING! Film at 11:00.
But let’s face it. Wikipedia is ONE source. Britannica is another source. Anyone that does a paper or a story or anything with only one, single source is a moron. Had an editor bang it over my head “three sources moron, now get out of here”. Sadly, editors like him are a dying breed.
Also “SN”. Calling Jimmy Wales a “pornographer” is a tad harsh. Larry Flint is a pornographer….but Jimmy Wales? I reckon Annie Leibovitz is a pornographer too by your standards.
SHOCKING
“SHOCKING! This will be ALL over the news! Keep watching!”
So it’s not news when a major popular science magazine falsifies its data?!
“Also “SN”. Calling Jimmy Wales a “pornographer” is a tad harsh. Larry Flint is a pornographer….but Jimmy Wales?”
So, what’s your definition of a pornographer? Both Flint and Wales published original photographs of nude women. Both of which included simulated sex. The only difference was that Flint published his on paper. Is that such a key difference?! I’m just curious.
Update: I thought it’d be interesting to see what Wikipedia has to say about this: “Pornography… is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal…”
So Wales’ goal was not the sexual arousal of his paying customers?! I’m really confused here. Why would men pay not to be aroused by viewing nude women?! Is that some sort of jab at the poor quality of the women he used to make his porn?!
Well, SN…The key difference is that Wales wasn’t making only pornography. That wasn’t his bread-and-butter, and it’s gone from the Earth now. Yes, he’s tried to distance himself from it. But I suppose if it were up to you, his obituary would read “Jimmy Wales, Pornographer”. I mean, you seem to be going out of your way to hit us over the head that he used have a section on his old website that had naked women in it. Ok, we get it. Bad Jimmy….BAAAD Jimmy. Not that it has ANYTHING to do with Nature or Britannica mind you. But hey, let’s throw a curve ball into the mix and get everyone talking about the picture of the girl here instead of the story itself.
Can’t this guy just get away from that? Can’t he ever repent? What about the one site editor here at Dvorak.org that claims he used to work in a Head Shop (I forget which one). Will he be hoping that sticks over his head for the rest of his life too, no matter what else he does from now on?
Also, Flint doesn’t simulate any sex act in his magazines and web pages and movies/videos/dvds and Hustler sex stores (brick & mortar and online stores)…it’s full-blown sex (as it were). But hey, one person’s art photo is another person’s filthy pornography.
But anyway, the problem here is of course with Nature, and not Wikipedia itself. I mean, Wikipedia didn’t write the article. Shame on Nature if they resorted to shoddy journalism and downright fabrication. As my old editor used to say “Three sources moron, now get out of here” (I know, not much of a catch phrase, but it was the way he said it).
Really, wow, show me the photos then. Where are they located at? Oh, that’s right, it’s been wiped off the face of the Earth. Darn.
Any cache anywhere? Did some enterprising spirit archive them anywhere? A search of Google (is is still cool to use Google? Or are we not using that now either….I get behind the times and it’s hard to keep up with this sites indignation) and I couldn’t really find anything under Bomis Babes.
But hey, good times right?
“The key difference is that Wales wasn’t making only pornography. “
Oh, I get it. You can produce all the porn you want, but if you have a second job, you’re not a pornographer. Thanks for clearing that up.
“That wasn’t his bread-and-butter, and it’s gone from the Earth now. “
That’s probably why I referred to him as a “former” pornographer. I also fixed it. It now says “former part-time pornographer.”
“What about the one site editor here at Dvorak.org that claims he used to work in a Head Shop”
What an amazing coincidence. That was me. And yes, I still refer to myself as a former head-shop employee. However, since I did also worked part time at a TV station as an engineer, I guess I wasn’t really a head-shopper, under your definition. It wasn’t my bread and butter, just something to do for a little extra money. Whew… that’s a big burden off of my shoulders. Thanks!
“Shame on Nature if they resorted to shoddy journalism and downright fabrication.”
I’m glad we can agree on that. And that was the real point of posting. The porn stuff was just mean fun.
Nature’s editors pick sides all the times in their articles. Their global warming stuff is equally suspect.
“geez guys. you’re acting as if being a pornographer is something bad.”
I certainly don’t think that. In fact I wish I had jumped in the net porn bandwagon back in the 90s, I could have sold out and retired a millionaire years ago.
I only point out that Wales is a former part-time pornographer to demonstrate that the guy is willing to make a fast buck, so he’s not the noble and altruistic person he pretends to be.
That’s probably the main reason why I’d never donate a cent to Wikipedia. It’s my uninformed and completely personal opinion that he and the rest of the gang are just waiting for the right moment to sell-out and reap a huge reward. Basically the same thing that happend with CDDB will happen with Wikipedia. You heard it here first.
Speaking of inaccuracies… how can anyone say that woman is ugly? Fake boobs or not, she has a wonderful face. She seems to have hair issues, though. A budding Rastafarian, maybe?
I think “MtigerV” made the best point… what good is Britanica’s accuracy if nobody uses it?
I use WIKI alot because it is the easiest to search from Google. I use it with caution and always take a moment to evaluate the source… somthing I wouldn’t do with Britanica.
If I want some basic info about something, then off I go to wikipedia, but if really researching it’s not even close to the top of my list of sources…..mainly because it IS so subjective and usually written by a fan/devotee of the subject.
And no one should be shocked that Nature did a whack job on Brittania, it’s been doing the same to global warming, and anyone who dosen’t pay them enough for a plug.
And, it took 8 posts before neo-con or Bush or Liberal was brought up…….getting slow guys.