Wikipedia is a popular resource on the Web. In fact, it is one of the world’s top-10 most visited websites. Now someone else is trying to take Wikipedia on by imitating it. Go to the link below and read the article. Write a reflective comment that shows you have read the article, expresses your views, and addresses my questions.
What do you think about Mr Cauz’s remarks about Google’s ranking of Wikipedia? Mr Cauz also made comments about Wikipedia itself. To what degree do you agree or disagree with his comments about Wikipedia and the people who use it? How successful will Encyclopedia Britannica be with this new ploy? What would you recommend Encyclopedia Britannica do to be more successful?
Watch Out Wikipedia Article
9 comments:
I think that Mr. Crauz is a biased source because he obviously has a grudge against Wikipedia, as seen by his tone, and by his position as the president of Wikipedia’s “nemesis”. Concerning the comments about Wikipedia, that it is “very uneven, and the facts are not always correct”, I think that that is partly true, but I have never found a serious problem with the information given. And although the lengths of the articles are not even, I think that they differ determined by the depth of it. For example, a song title usually has a shorter entry then the entry of “Nuclear weapons”. Also I think that the fact that anybody can make or edit a page encourages people to share their information on topics that they are knowledgeable on; and although anyone can edit a page for a prank, since so many people are constantly going to this page, the prank will be found and corrected. Also, I think that the fact that anyone can edit an entry gives controversial topics a more global and unbiased perspective. If Encyclopedia Britannica wishes to be successful they should make the registration for editors easier, so people will be encouraged to sign up and make new entries. Although it is clear that I am a Wikipedia supporter, and therefore give a biased opinion, I believe that Wikipedia will continue to be more successful than Encyclopedia Britannica.
I think Mr. Cauz’s marks about the relationship between Google and Wikipedia are true but he should not say they should not be like that because they can do whatever they want and it is none of his business. I do agree that for education Britannica is a better source than Wikipedia however I believe he has no right to say things about Wikipedia and I don’t mind Wikipedia being there. Britannica will not be much more successful because if people wanted to do that they would just use Wikipedia. I would recommend the encyclopedia to make itself a bigger name and to become in good relationship with Google like Wikipedia is so they can make them one of the first search results on that page.
Its hard to take what the president of any company says about a competitor that has disloged them from the number one spot seriously. He is correct in some areas such as But there have beeen third party comparrisons between Britannica and Wikipedia in the past and Wikipedia has been shown to have many more articles spaning many more topics. In additon, its free. For alot of users, thsi is the distinguishing feature. Britannica might attract new attention with their ploy but I think it will take more then that to bring it up to Wikipedia in users minds.
I understand that Mr. Cauz somebody that believes in moving forward with technology, and finding new ways to give information. However, I have become more comfortable with wikipedia, because of the fact that anybody can post information on each of the entries. This is well-known because of people going on to these sites and playing pranks by putting irrelevant jokes on the wikipedia entries. Although, if used seriously, it can provide a way to post information that may not be known by other people, and provide unbiased information to be shared with the world. Mr. Cauz’s proposal to release Britannica 2.0 is just another online dictionary where you aren’t exactly free to express your own opinions. I believe in free speech, and I also believe that wikipedia should stay as is.
I think that Mr.Cauz’s remarks about Google’s ranking of Wikipedia that the competition between Britannica and Wikipedia is relatively high. But he should not interfere because every website has its own copyright agreements and its database. I do agree that Britannica is more useful and trustful but as Wikipedia is being advertised and used as a first option on its search engine which is Google, and because Wikipedia is one of the top ten websites used by the whole population, it would be a tough job for Britannica to compete at that level although its more trustful. I would suggest that Britannica should advertise all over the Internet and maybe by using Yahoo as their search engine.
I think that Mr.Cauz's remarks towards Google's liking with Wikipedia are logical. Google's top results always have a Wikipedia site and Wikipedia isn't a trusted source so it shouldn't be one of the top results. I completely agree with Mr.Cauz's remarks towards Wikipedia because most teachers actually say not to use Wikipedia as a source for a research project because any one could go online and type anything they want. I know for a fact that a person could say anything, no matter how ridiculous the claim, and it would remain on Wikipedia for some time. I don't think that the new ploy, which Britannica will employ, will work. It just seems as if they're trying to imitate Wikipedia, but if they want to overcome Wikipedia they should just come up with a new program which is completely original. Also, I don't think that Britannica should have a registration program for the online source. It just causes pains for people trying to get some information. So, in order for Britannica to be successful, they must be original and get rid of the registration program if they want to become better than Wikipedia.
Non of the information on Wikipedia or any other website of this kind will be right because all the people are entering their opinions and opinions are not always right."Mr Cauz said that any changes or additions made to Britannica entries online would have to be vetted by one of the company's staff or freelance editors before the changes were reflected on the live site."Mr. Cauz had a pretty good idea about how to make Britannica better but for some reason he is against Wikipedia and there is an obvious reason to why he hates it. Its because he is president of a company that is competing with Wikipedia and thats why he doesn't like it obviously!
The facts will never be correct as long as people are the ones who are entering their opinions whether its on Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica or any other website that is. I think people should just use Google if they wanna look for something."He said the encyclopedia had set a benchmark of a 20-minute turnaround to update the site with user-submitted edits to existing articles, which are written by the encyclopedia's paid expert contributors." this idea of his could actually work and make it better than Wikipedia. thats all i have to say and think about this whole subject.
I don't think Mr Cauz's remarks about Google's ranking should be taken into account by anyone. It is obvious he's biased about Wikipedia.
I don't agree with Mr Cauz at all. Wikipedia's quality is awesome. The facts are as correct as the word you type into the search bar.
Not only the lazy people go on Wikipedia, people who go onto Wikipedia might as well be described as " people with a thirst for knowledge"
Well it's putting down Wikipedia, and playing dirty to get people to switch sites so of course people's attention is going to be brought to E.B. I recommend Encyclopedia Britannica not to insult Wikipedia but to say that Wikipedia was an inspiration and has helped many people throughout the years but they're just more developed.
I think that Mr. Cauz is being unreasonable about wikipedia. Wikipeda has been available and easy to use for a long time.
Huge search engines such as Google uses wikipedia as a first link proving it is reliable. The head of the competing encyclopedia, Britannica, even said so "If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia," he said. "Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?" Britannica coming up and expecting to take up wikipedias place is not very smart. Many people rely on wikipedia and have learned to trust it. Britannica maybe a better source for education since they have more interactive methods, but still wikipedia is reliable too. Now if he believes that Britannica is better then okay good for him but maybe some people prefer wikipedia! So he really shouldn’t say those things about the other encyclopedia. It’s up to the user to deicide what to use. He can try to make Britannica seem better but in the end it’s not his choice. To make their encyclopedia more popular they should get on good terms with the major search engines like Google until these search engines promote them as one of their links and recommend them. Online encyclopedias are very used these days; research online makes things easier and so is very popular amongst scholars or anyone who uses such sites. And so more of them will be used as researchers tend to go on many websites before using the information and so I think it will be successful.
Noor Mansur
Post a Comment