Wikinews talk:Story preparation/EB 2.0
There are no discussions on this page.
Return to the project page "Story preparation/EB 2.0".
Nick Moreau (user:zanimum) has arranged an email-based interview with Tom Panelas of Encyclopedia Britannica, about its suggested editing feature. Post you suggested questions below...
- How does Britannica establish what new articles to create? Sesame Street warrants only mentions in a few articles, yet one of its characters, Big Bird, gets a separate article. Gmail receives its own article, yet early webmail Hotmail isn't even mentioned in Microsoft's article. While some specific theme parks have their own articles, as does the topic of roller coasters, there is no article on theme parks. While it would be difficult for Britannica equal Wikipedia's breadth of coverage, but maintain its quality, how can such holes be justified? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- How is this different from encartas Wiki-like feature that was introduced a while back? Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- What size of community are you aiming for? [this question is a little lame]. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you believe you have sufficent resources (staff) to review all the contributations you expect to recieve. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- What time frame do you think you will review contributations.Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- What is your opinion on the Free-content movement. Wikipedia allows anyone to reuse its content, in the aim of spreading information everywhere. You require your contributators to assign copyright to you. Do you think people will not like the fact that they do not own their contributations. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- What do you think the future of print encyclopedias are in the digital world. Do they still have a place, or are they obsolete. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Users must create an account in order to submit changes to Britannica articles, but the editing interface is available to any visitor. In addition to the improvement and updating of content, are the new editing features intended to drive premium membership directly?--ragesoss (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- The current beta version of the "topic history" has only perfunctory descriptions of changes to an article. In the case of substantial changes, will earlier versions and unique version identifiers be available so that citations to articles can be traced to the specific version cited?--ragesoss (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- My question relates to Zanimum's first question, but specifically concerns only BLP (Biographies of Living Persons). Zanimum has asked "How does Britannica establish what new articles to create?" Pardon if I am not neutral on this query, but I will go direct to my point. a) How do you measure notability or worthiness of a living person to be written in EB? b) If Wikipedia has written or created a specific biography of a living person, and that person/article has tons of verifiable or reliable international sources in the internet (not only in one department like law, philosophy, and the like, but on PSI, weirdness, etc.), will you also allow creation of the existing article-bio in Wikipedia in your EB? c) In Wikipedia, no living person can write about himself or by sockpuppets. Now, will you allow that living person to write or edit and contribute an article-bio about himself or herself, subject to your approval?--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Put more tersely: I am Philippines Judge Florentino Floro. (I registered with Wikinews on or around December 3, 2008. I am a Wikinews:Editor as of January 12, 2009). As you see, my Wikipedia article has been written merely as start-class perhaps, since all the international links on this have not yet been inserted to make it complete and neutral. I do not blame editors there, but journalists who focused on mental illness due to dwarf consultation, for reasons - readers will read news that are weird, etc. I wrote one article in Knol and did not continue writing since it bombed. As I wrote the EN-Wiki article - Encyclopaedia Britannica fights back against Wikipedia, soon to let users edit contents, I found the sole secret of success of Jimbo Wales-Wikipedia: openness and freedom in Encyclopedia amid neutrality and vandalism. I you read my BLP, Florentino Floro, you will laugh at me, but I tell you, I never consulted dwarves to pen decisions. My best proof is my 62 articles here which are very neutral amid my ignorance of journalism and its very difficult style. IN FINE, my query: is EB willing to follow the footsteps of Jimbo Wales on freedom to create BLP? Are you willing to go a step further, a step which Wikipedia Encyclopedia never did take: are you willing to allow me or others to create their own BLP on EN Florentino Floro, based on tons of sources - User:Florentino Floro - "Florentino Floro" - Google?[Please edit this too long question if your wish, since, I am not neutral on this query, but, this is a challenge to EB, if it wishes to match J. Wales] Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- [Prefatory - Even if I have had no experience or academic record on journalism, in my stay here since December 3, 2008, I had read about 10 news articles before I would write one of my 62 written articles User:Florentino Floro/MyList. I notice that most of the news articles worldwide do insert not only the name of the news company but also the name of the author of the news, in the very article. But in Wikinews, however, I wonder, if Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation would revise the rules to conform to this news usage worldwide. Can Wikinews also insert the name of the Wiknews author or editor who created the specific news article, even if the history tab already indicates, to make it more akin to the tons of news articles' usage?]
- Is EB willing to insert in the EB article the name of the creator of the biography or any other article, even if the history tab of EB already shows the authorship and contribution?--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think you are diluting Britannia's brand identity by doing this? After all wikipedia is the established leader in wiki based encyclopedias, wouldn't it be better to stick to and highlight as a virtue Britannia's unique selling point of academic integrity and use of experts and specialists.KTo288 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)