Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica fights back against Wikipedia, soon to let users edit contents

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Florentino Floro in topic Error in article

I CREATED this online encyclopedia Britannica article. It seems Knol also did the same, don't know if Know catches up. Please help in publishing it. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Other sources edit

[1]Encyclopedia Britannica to allow user edits; [2]Encyclopædia Britannica to incorporate user-generated content;[3]Britannica looking to give Wikipedia a run for its money with online editing;[4]5 reasons is losing out online--Florentino Floro (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

[5]25 January 2009, Wikipedia's founder calls for monitoring to prevent false entries

[6]Wikipedia may adopt approval system--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Minnor notes edit

(sorry, I really don't have time to review). But some minor notes. The german wikipedia isn't the only project with flagged revs on. English wikibooks has them on, english wikinews [us] has them on, and several other sites. Currently 17 wikimedia wikis have them enabled (plus some test sites somewhere AFAIK). I'm also not sure a personal request for jimbo would be considered an order, by the nature of it being a personal request. Hmm, what else, might be worth mentioning that Encarta did the exact same thing a couple years ago, and it didn't really work for them. Also might also want to mention how your measuring popularity of websites. (probably alexa, but there are others, and none of the popularity measures are anywhere near perfect). Looks really good.

Thank for the notes. But I would not like to put inside the articles things that have no back-up or sources. Remember the rules, and in an article I wrote I was failed 2 times because I did not allegedly include the sources, amid the problem of reviewers being scared with too many sources. Anyway, I just wrote about German Wiki, meaning INTER ALIA, or among others. Ostensibly this Wikinews is the perfect example. But I think it is not flag response, since, news and encylop. are miles apart. Writing defamatory news will jail the author and editor for contempt or etc. While Wiki ency. is edited vandalized minutes by minutes. It is also hard to measure popularity of websites. But for us editors, we are protected from libel or neutrality by just citing one or two reliable sources. Here in the Philippines, Wikipedia Eng. Ency. is top rated by Universities and lower level schools. In fact Wikipedia was banned as research material in many Universities here, since the corrupt cartel and university profs. lost money selling their books, since students use Wikipedia.
Also, before I was banned in Wikipedia english (due to 2 co-Filipino editors who got angry of these expose), just blocking my user because I posted IP address Mumbai - they use psychics though to detect my prophecies -remember the 3 plane crashes here and Mumbai) - I put up a long User Page pics and URLS so that my created articles could be cited as authorities as LEARNED TREATISES under the USA and Philippines Rules on Evidence. I wrote good legal articles there, and if courts will receive evidence that I with my academic credentials are the source of these, then, these magistrates will receive these as learned treatises saving expense to bring me to the countries to be cross-examined. Just saying ....--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just 11 sources now - FLAME WARS, or rather STAR WARS on Wikipedia, Jan 29 is the deadline for all your comment on Flag response edit

I tried my best to put the most compleat sources, JUST 11. Hoping for your kindness and patience. Cheers. This is a very very rare article for WIKIPEDIA.

Some other sources edit

I had put in here all the sources that I read, but I think the main article's sources that I put are OK. Just backing up some of the facts. [7]Wikipedia has 97% of the online encyclopedia market; [8]Proposal to flag, approve Wikipedia revisions provokes ire [9]Wikipedia editors may approve all changes [10] Proposal to flag, approve Wikipedia revisions provokes ire [11]Wikipedia Seeks To Clean Up Revisions [12]Kennedy, Byrd the Latest Victims of Wikipedia Errors [13]Wikipedia May Make Itself Harder to Edit [14]Just How Powerful Is Wikipedia? [15]Jimmy Wales wants Wikipedia edit flags--Florentino Floro (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

transferred sources, minor edit

Review edit

I don't have time right now, but if no one has reviewed this by the end of the day I'll do it. Got to make sure these big articles get published. Don't want all that work to go to waste:). Gopher65talk 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is an undertaking indeed. However, I abandoned my attempt when the first link was invalid. I foresaw hours of sorting out links (though I don't really know since I abandoned). Can these issues possibly be resolved before submitting for {{review}}? I hope so, --SVTCobra 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since the BIG THING is for January 29, the longer the time the BETTER, since this BIG Jimmy Wales article is watched with BATHED breath by the Internet world edit

Remember, NOW, big time journalists are URGING Jimmy Wales to fight against censoring or edit protect, flag revisions. If you read carefully the core of my uploaded links, you will find that the SECRET of success of Jimbo's Wiki is openness. Jimbo is being suggested to make money from Wiki citing Samuel ...

The Charms of Wikipedia edit

  • "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual", BKWKPDMM.RVW, a review by Robert Slade, The Internet Review *Project, 2008[16]The Charms of Wikipedia
As you all see, when I CREATED this article, there are only 2 or 3 links. But since BBC or Beebs started this thing, many IDIOTS came in and the BIG TIME links too. So, Jimbo-Wikipedia is being publicized on the web as NEVER before. So please be PATIENT and not scared by the tons of links. We and Wikipedia english en. with BATED or BATHED breath will know on Jan 29 or days after, what Jimbo will decide amid the FLAME wars. This article started with ENs fight vs. Wikipedia, then, it veered away or bloomed to Wiki vs the editors. I don't thing, that COLLABORATION is just ONE PAIN of ONE reviewer. NO PAIN NO GAIN. Let us make this article a good one with BETTER style of writing. I already input the contents, you may do the STYLE. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Review edit

NPOV ?? you must be joking lol - I did not read anywhere that this article says "but more than 60% of the editors agreed something should be done, nor anything about Wikipedia being acceptable as a reliable source of information
It was not 5 minutes before the errors were corrected - it was 1 minute, 3 times. If this is an example of NPoV then I am living on the moon breathing space dust and living here with the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, Aristotle and the Quizling
Regards----Chaosdruid (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS - How much did they pay you ?

Britannica merge online changes to print edition edit

Somebody recently made this edit [20] regarding unsourced material. I couldn't find it either, so i sighted the edit. Bawolff 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

and [21] seems to say the opposite. Bawolff 10:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
You sighted it just as I replaced it with a more nuanced sentence inspired by the same Telegraph article. The Times interview, announcements and blogs from are not 100% clear. There seems to be 2 ways to interact:
  1. to suggest edits to Britannica editors, who may go on to change a "Britannica checked" article (these may or many not end up in the print edition with a credit - nothing is mentioned about this)
  2. to create your own articles and multimedia presentations, which are entirely credited to you. It is clearly said that these are for online use only.
Although none of the news articles I looked at picked up on these 2 types of online article, I think it will be ok for my sentence:
Articles developed by Britannica's own editors also appear in the printed volumes, which are published every two years, though material created by what Cauz called their "community of scholars" will only appear online.
to remain in the article.
Meanwhile, I take my hat off to Florentino Floro and iDangerMouse for wading through all this detail.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your comment. Amid the days and tons of news on this which I painfully worked on, I dare say now that there is only ONE SECRET in the phenomenal success of Wikipedia Encyclopedia: openness, freedom and community rule. Even if I lost the blocking battle against my very own co-Filipino and co-Ateneo de Manila University editors including an Indian editor, though, I am fully amazed how Jimbo Wales and Wikimedia Foundation reached the pinnacle of ONLINE glory because of FREEDOM - yes, freedom without restriction which is hated by China, and those countries who fear the mob or community rule.
For this reason, Wikinews is so difficult, since, it is too painful to write and have a good news article published. I spend more than 7 hours just to write an article, and even 3 days for hard articles. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is it just me, or is this... edit

...biased against Wikipedia. This seems rather very critical of it and Jimbo..."Wikipedia has thrived on a tiny permanent staff and a vast army of altruistic volunteers resulting in manifest faults – liberal bias, waffling prose, threat to traditional publishers, inconsistency and lack of proper sources." "A virtual rebellion can be seen on Wales' talk page..." Ed 15:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are right. It isn't even remotely close to neutral. It's typical of Wikinews, though. Tolerance for trolls is pretty shocking here.-- 14:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I love Wikipedia despite its faults. While I respect the freedom of the press, perhaps the "thrived" part of the sentence could be expanded to redress the balance. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Error in article edit

It would be a good idea to correct the following error:

"And some members of the community were annoyed that Wales took his case to the media."

There is nothing to suggest that Wales "took his case to the media", as indicated by the Moinneaux comment. Cary Bass (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, sir for my late reply, I did'nt notice this. Yes, I agree that there is nothing, in proof or evidence law, which could definitely point to the media use by Mr. Wales. But I just uploaded in development the news reports on this specific matter (might be hearsay for us lawyers) which I collated and pasted in developing this news. For this reason, anybody, even an anonymous IP address editor could have edited the matter and sighted by the peer view editors, even after publication. As CREATOR my only job, with all due respect, is development, for the peer review. Hoping for your kind understanding, Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Editing continuing? edit

This article is five days old. Why are people still editing it? --SVTCobra 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is (was - less so now) riddled with factual errors and is highly biased against Wikipedia, the WMF and Jimbo and is a bit biased in favour of EB. I was shocked to find it in the mainspace. Redvers (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It should have been a correction notice. In any case, I have started a discussion elsewhere to have the user who "reviewed" this taken off the list of editors. What was initially published had serious issues over neutrality, factual accuracy, and inclusion of editorialising by the author. It should never have passed a review. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Return to "Encyclopædia Britannica fights back against Wikipedia, soon to let users edit contents" page.