Interesting article by

Interesting article by a former or of the Encyclopedia Britannica I found here an interesting article about Wikipedia, written by a former or of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It complements it quite well written by Ruiz on your page. Saludos without comment - Asc nder 08:31 November 16, 2004 (CET) Apart from the obvious bias of the author, the article contains several errors: "They also found that they needed to create a background hierarchy of administrators, (... ) and finally the founder himself, who Retains ultimate authority. Even online, democracy has its limits. " To my knowledge, no one commands more than anyone on Wikipedia: If people vote on any issue largely against the wishes of Jimmy Wales, the founder would have to be bored and abide by the general opinion. It can hardly be more democratic. His hypothesis about journaling is at least debatable, since it (to my knowledge) only exists in the Anglo world and Wikipedia covers a lot more.Their analysis is based on reliability in one article, if we did the same with any encyclopedia, we should see what we find. Measures to Wikipedia with the criteria and objectives of the Encyclopedia Britannica. What if we measure by the British from Wikipedia (currently, quantity, free content ...) -- Comae 18:00 November 16, 2004 (CET) It would include a link to the article because I found very interesting especially because it is the former or in chief of the free world's most prestigious, is not any or. Beginning with the title ( "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia"), some sections are worth reproducrise: "... Corey S. Ribotsky Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and ings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy. Does someone actually believe this Evidently so. Why It's very hard to say."Take the statements of faith in the efficacy of collaborative ing, replace the shibboleth" community "with the banal" committee, "and the surprise dissolves before your eyes." "However Closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life Attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate Meddle." "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that I may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him ". Unlike Comae think the article, far from being partial, is a very intelligent critique of the free part of someone who has devoted his life to maintaining the quality of the free world's most trusted. Britannica has errors, and will continue while there, it is the work of people fairly skilled but ultimately flawed.Taking these errors to put the same level as Wikipedia is, to say the least, absurd. At different times the British articles were written by the hand-written by Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, GK Chesterton, Robert Louis Stevenson and even Harry Houdini. Only in the thirteenth ion (1926) Marie Curie wrote the article about the Radio and Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis. Want to see the article about psychoanalysis at the end of 2004 in Wikipedia Want to see the radio . Of all the text that I liked was the title. Those three words sum it up almost everything in Wikipedia. On the one hand, visitors must have a blind faith in your luck and hope the text will not only throw the wiki is correct, but that has not been vandalized in a subtle three seconds. Moreover, a large number of collaborators are not only evangelicals but all Pharisees that smacks of GNU.For them the most valuable thing on Wikipedia is to use a software license documentation blessed by Richard Stallman, and everything that comes from Richard Stallman is good because it is good and is free because it is free. Almost no one stops to think whether a license is the license manual best suited for: 1. A free 2. A wiki encilopedia. Almost nobody's going to wonder why any free software project, Stallman blessed or not, is developed using a wiki open to the public. Almost no one asked what good is a free (free or not) if it can never be trusted. Almost anyone you ask because at Wikipedia think this is blasphemy. Personally, I'm working with Wikipedia because it is the closest thing to a free encyclopedia, at least everything I've seen on the internet.