= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on [SEQ RERUN] Politics is the Mind-Killer - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (24)
How is that different from standard encyclopedia practice? It at least initially appears that it's one of the few things standard encyclopedias do better than wikipedia.
I think I really meant it did it much better than pretty much anything on the web. Which I suppose isn't saying much, but I think it's saying more than nothing - Britannica is a culturally reified gold standard that approximately no-one actually cracks open past high school; Wikipedia is something ordinary people use every day when they just would not have used a paper encyclopedia.
Though, of course, Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia and has always looked up to Britannica. As I note below, it would be interesting to actually compare the neutrality of current Wikipedia with current Britannica.
Oh, I certainly agree with this. I'd just trace it back to Wikipedia's roots - and I suspect that as fewer people are familiar with Britannica, Wikipedia will lose that more and more.
That's ... a thought on Wikipedia's future that hadn't occurred to me before. You can see it already, of course. Even just "We're here to write an encyclopedia" requires a prior notion of an encyclopedia other than what you're already doing. But then there's anecdotes of kids already saying "encyclopedia? Is that like Wikipedia?" I wonder how Wikipedia will self-define.