Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Britannica - would you buy it on (say) Kindle or Nook?

<< < (4/8) > >>

wraith808:
But studies have shown that the quality (i.e., error rate) of Britannica is only somewhat better than Wikipedia -- they're both of similar magnitude.

I fear that the stigma really stems from academia (right down to elementary school) believing in a top-down model, a priesthood of experts who dictate to the masses, whereas WP stands for power from the ground up.
-CWuestefeld (March 15, 2012, 04:47 PM)
--- End quote ---

Not to get off-topic, but while your arguments may be valid (there is the argument that it's not about top down, but responsibility), they still don't reflect the stark reality of those students in the halls of academia, i.e. they can't use Wikipedia.  So Britannica and their ilk still serve a very real purpose currently.  And indexing them in a digital manner on a digital platform does serve a purpose.  Not having that constraint, I don't think that I would purchase them for myself, but others in my household do have to live by those constraints, so it's a possibility.

40hz:
But studies have shown that the quality (i.e., error rate) of Britannica is only somewhat better than Wikipedia -- they're both of similar magnitude.

I fear that the stigma really stems from academia (right down to elementary school) believing in a top-down model, a priesthood of experts who dictate to the masses, whereas WP stands for power from the ground up.
-CWuestefeld (March 15, 2012, 04:47 PM)
--- End quote ---

While I can agree in spirit with that argument (academics having much to answer for) I still worry about the current trend towards confusing consensus with fact and proof. I've seen too much scientifically determined fact dismissed with comments like: "Well, that's just your opinion." or "I'm sorry, but we don't see it that way." to be too anxious to toss out our entire qualified peer review system in favor of mob rule when it comes to creating reference materials.

And while crowd sourcing may be all the rage, I can't help but wonder why the opinions of experts or scientific research is now often considered less reliable and acceptable than the off-the-cuff collective opinion of 400 laymen, a talk show host, or a badly designed and conducted poll.

Small surprise we now see things like over 500 locales authoritatively listed as the number one place (singular) for starting a business in America - if the magazines can be trusted. Or how worries about carbon and global warming are dismissed by our policy makers because their is no 'scientific' consensus to support the concern.

Not to say that everyone isn't entitled to their opinion.

It's just that I think its both naive and potentially dangerous to think that everyone's opinion should automatically be given equal weight.

Call me crazy, but from what I've seen, something like 80% of what's out there talking (i.e. the "All I know is______" crowd) isn't entitled to an opinion because they simply don't know enough (and usually can't be bothered to learn enough) to be qualified to even have an opinion worth listening to.
 8)

superboyac:
I mean, at this point, Britannica is just dying a relatively quick death.  Who really needs it?  Nobody wants or needs your books, anything you put online will be inferior to wikipedia, so either figure out a way to fill a need that is currently unfilled, or...goodbye.
-superboyac (March 15, 2012, 03:35 PM)
--- End quote ---

Actually, not.  There's a very good reason for Britannica and other recognized sources to be there- and other than the fact that Wikipedia is crowdsourced, so the information is only as reputable as effort the community puts into it, i.e. unsourced information remains on the site.  That is for education.  Most schools don't accept things sourced from Wikipedia.  In the educational arena for the most part, Wikipedia is persona non grata.
-wraith808 (March 15, 2012, 04:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
I've changed my tune on all that educational institution stuff lately also.  I really don't value much of the academic community as much as I did 10 years ago.  At this point, even if someone had a PhD, I would have a healthy amount of skepticism about what I though of the person.  I've met too many highly intelligent people that have very few resume accolades, and I've met a lot of people with lots of degrees to their name that lacked all sorts of common sense and open-mindedness.

I know the academic community doesn't respect informal sources of information, but i don't care anymore.  I just don't have much trust or patience left for things that want me to believe them simply because of a label like "Dr." or "40 years experience doing...".  Too often, people and corporations are hiding behind these labels.  What they're hiding?  i don't know, but they won't tell, and if you don't tell, I don't trust.  I'd just as soon go to sources like wikipedia that are willing to be transparent and engage in open and honest debates.  "Because I say so" doesn't mean anything...even if you have 5 PhD's.

40hz:
I'd just as soon go to sources like wikipedia that are willing to be transparent and engage in open and honest debates.
-superboyac (March 15, 2012, 05:24 PM)
--- End quote ---

Except they're really not. There are all sorts of agendas, cliques, and power brokers within the Wikipedia community. Just like everywhere else. (Get involved as a contributor and you'll find that out pretty quickly.) So while I don't think having a PhD should automatically be the final word in a discussion, I still think juried articles and extensive peer reviews of research data and findings goes a long way towards keeping things honest. At least more often than not.

Not that it will matter. The free exchange of academic information is coming to an end as more and more academic research gets sponsored by business and government interests and now tends to disappear into information silos - or behind paywalls and NDAs - as fast as it's collected and written up.

I'm not defending the ivory towers. But I am experienced enough not to think that getting rid of our current known problem children is automatically going to solve things. Most times, you get rid of one group of rascals and a bigger group of absolute thugs take their place.
 :)

wraith808:
Except they're really not. There are all sorts of agendas, cliques, and power brokers within the Wikipedia community. Just like everywhere else. (Get involved as a contributor and you'll find that out pretty quickly.)
-40hz (March 15, 2012, 05:43 PM)
--- End quote ---

QFT.  And very good summarization of what I meant above with your comments on the peer review system.  Non-PhD's can bring things to the table, and so a group of PhD's vetting each other's work doesn't mean that you have the last word on the subject.  But you're a sight closer than you are without them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page