[WEB4LIB] Re: Co-founder of Wikipedia talks about problems

[Lars Aronsson]

Andrew Mutch wrote:

> "Wikipedia is primarily for Internet users, not for traditional
> users of encyclopedias."
> 
> What's the distinction between the two groups and on what basis do
> you make that claim?

Exactly this is the difficult thing with all such generation shifts,
as are described in Christensen's book.  Most people who are looking
for "knowledge from an encyclopedia" will look in a library rather
than in Wikipedia. The people who look in Wikipedia are those who have
googled for it, or who are already fans of or contributors to
Wikipedia. One might think that these two groups of people are the
same, and sometimes they are, but they come with two very different
mindsets.  Karen's conclusion that Wikipedia isn't needed, comes from
her mindset where she looks for an encyclopedia, rather than linkable
information on the web.

Just like Karen, I have a website.  If I write about a topic and want
to give a background, I wouldn't write "if this is new to you, visit
your library and look it up in an encyclopedia".  Instead I would just
link to an article in Wikipedia, because I am writing on the web, my
readers are on the web, and Wikipedia is on the web.  Sure,
Encyclopaedia Britannica is also on the web, but I cannot know if my
reader has a subscription, so linking to its articles is less useful.
Sure, I would read the article in Wikipedia first, to see that it
exists and contains relevant information.  Otherwise I might link to
another website that provides the information, or I might write the
Wikipedia article there and then only to be able to link to it.

If I was instead writing a school paper or an article for a magazine
in print, I might just write "as any encyclopedia will tell you,
Alfred Nobel died in 1896".

Fans of Wikipedia will tell you that it is already an encyclopedia,
and fans of encyclopedias are likely to disagree.  I think there is a
difference and will be for some time.  But I have also found enough
errors in printed encyclopedias to have a realistic view of their
usefulness.  They are commercial products with deadlines and limited
budgets, colored by the cultural and political values of their time.  
On a scale between bad and good, Wikipedia and existing printed or
CDROM encyclopedias exist side by side, but none is at either end of
the scale.  Wikipedia is moving fast, but still has some way to go.  
Larry Sanger points to where it could be, but he isn't pushing it.  
The Swedish Wikipedia is now where the German one was a year ago, and
where the English one was even earlier, both in size and quality.  
All three are good enough to tell me when Alfred Nobel died, but
currently the English one cannot tell me how much of his money was set
aside for the Nobel Prize foundation (31 million kronor).


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Project Runeberg - free Nordic literature - http://runeberg.org/