http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98 Web 2.0 and programming tips from a library technology enthusiast, What I Learned Today... covers blogs, rss, wikis and more as they relate to libraries. Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:27:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98#comment-113237 What I Learned Today… » Blog Archive » Encyclopaedia Britannica Goes — Gasp! — Wiki Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:47:45 +0000 http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98#comment-113237 [...] the back and forth in the Wikipedia/Britannica debate, Britannica caves: Long a standard reference source for scholarship, largely [...] [...] the back and forth in the Wikipedia/Britannica debate, Britannica caves: Long a standard reference source for scholarship, largely [...]

]]> http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98#comment-10759 What I Learned Today… » Blog Archive » Britannica vs. Wikipedia - via email Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:23:03 +0000 http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98#comment-10759 [...] The Wall Street Journal Online has an interesting email conversation between Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of Britannica. For those of you who are behind on the encyclopedia debate you can find my other posts here, here and here. [...] [...] The Wall Street Journal Online has an interesting email conversation between Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of Britannica. For those of you who are behind on the encyclopedia debate you can find my other posts here, here and here. [...]

]]> http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98#comment-6471 What I Learned Today… » Blog Archive » That’s so 2005! Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:41:58 +0000 http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98#comment-6471 [...] I’m sure you remember the Nature/Britannica debate back in December of 2005 and March of this year. If you don’t you can read about it here and here. [...] [...] I’m sure you remember the Nature/Britannica debate back in December of 2005 and March of this year. If you don’t you can read about it here and here. [...]

]]> http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98#comment-1010 What I Learned Today… » Blog Archive » The Wikipedia/Britannica Debate Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:55:40 +0000 http://www.web2learning.net/archives/98#comment-1010 [...] Back in December there was a lot of news coverage regarding an article in Nature magazine that stated that both Wikipedia and Britannica had a similar number of errors. Well Britannica has replied with a 20 page report (which I have not read all of - for reasons already stated - I’m way behind) In its December 15, 2005, issue, the science journal Nature published an article that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclopædia Britannica with Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any subject. Wikipedia had recently received attention for its alleged inaccuracies, but Nature’s article claimed to have found that “such high-profile examples [of major errors in Wikipedia] are the exception rather than the rule” and that “the difference in accuracy [between Britannica and Wikipedia] was not particularly great.” [...] [...] Back in December there was a lot of news coverage regarding an article in Nature magazine that stated that both Wikipedia and Britannica had a similar number of errors. Well Britannica has replied with a 20 page report (which I have not read all of - for reasons already stated - I’m way behind) In its December 15, 2005, issue, the science journal Nature published an article that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclopædia Britannica with Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any subject. Wikipedia had recently received attention for its alleged inaccuracies, but Nature’s article claimed to have found that “such high-profile examples [of major errors in Wikipedia] are the exception rather than the rule” and that “the difference in accuracy [between Britannica and Wikipedia] was not particularly great.” [...]

]]>