italiano - español
<analytics uacct="UA-6089322-1" ></analytics>

Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2001-2003

Da Cantiere.
Versione del 16 feb 2009 alle 18:06 di Andrea (Discussione | contributi) (Nuova pagina: ===2001=== [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121/ Kuro5hin] 2001/07/26 ''Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias'' (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger) :{{Citaz...)

(diff) ← Versione meno recente | Versione attuale (diff) | Versione più recente → (diff)

2001

Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)
{{#if:| {{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«"The economics of the all-free model has changed," said Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas says in the AP story. Gone are the halcyon days of free content. Au contraire--that's only what Britannica wants you to think. The grandest days of free content have not yet begun. Britannica and other proprietary encyclopedias will be hopelessly obsolete within ten years--small, out-of-date, and generally irrelevant--by comparison with Nupedia, Wikipedia, and the many other non-proprietary reference works that are being and will be developed. »
 Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>|
(<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>)
}} 		Btn edit.gif
«"The economics of the all-free model has changed," said Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas says in the AP story. Gone are the halcyon days of free content. Au contraire--that's only what Britannica wants you to think. The grandest days of free content have not yet begun. Britannica and other proprietary encyclopedias will be hopelessly obsolete within ten years--small, out-of-date, and generally irrelevant--by comparison with Nupedia, Wikipedia, and the many other non-proprietary reference works that are being and will be developed. »
{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>|
(<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>)
}}

}}

{{#if:| {{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«This means, as you no doubt already know, that anyone may use their content, for nonprofit or for-profit purposes, provided they link back to the content's source. It also means that the content can be developed further by other parties. Someone who releases an article under an open content license does so in order to guarantee that the article remains free to the public. This guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia. Moreover, if scholars concentrate their forces in building an open content encyclopedia, they will be fired by a further motive: there is considerable value in the collaboration that can be found in a general encyclopedia project and in the uniformity and high quality of the results. This value cannot be found in as high a degree in the activities of each writer posting content independently. »
 Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>|
(<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>)
}} 		Btn edit.gif
«This means, as you no doubt already know, that anyone may use their content, for nonprofit or for-profit purposes, provided they link back to the content's source. It also means that the content can be developed further by other parties. Someone who releases an article under an open content license does so in order to guarantee that the article remains free to the public. This guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia. Moreover, if scholars concentrate their forces in building an open content encyclopedia, they will be fired by a further motive: there is considerable value in the collaboration that can be found in a general encyclopedia project and in the uniformity and high quality of the results. This value cannot be found in as high a degree in the activities of each writer posting content independently. »
{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>|
(<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>)
}}

}}

{{#if:| {{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«contributing articles to Wikipedia is easy, as is editing other people's articles. There is naturally little motivation to make substantive edits to articles on subjects about which one knows nothing, and mistakes are often caught and made a public spectacle. So experts are respected and deferred to, which encourages and motivates the experts--thus the increasing level of expertise on the website. Moreover, Wikipedians edit each other's stuff, so they feel a sense of collective purpose, responsibility, and camaraderie, which is yet another motivation to participate. »
 Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>|
(<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>)
}} 		Btn edit.gif
«contributing articles to Wikipedia is easy, as is editing other people's articles. There is naturally little motivation to make substantive edits to articles on subjects about which one knows nothing, and mistakes are often caught and made a public spectacle. So experts are respected and deferred to, which encourages and motivates the experts--thus the increasing level of expertise on the website. Moreover, Wikipedians edit each other's stuff, so they feel a sense of collective purpose, responsibility, and camaraderie, which is yet another motivation to participate. »
{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>|
(<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>)
}}

}}

  • Sun Media syndicated "netelligence" column by Sandy McMurray (printed in the London Free Press, Calgary Sun, and Toronto Sun 2001/08/15, Edmonton Sun 2001/08/16)
  • Wales on Sunday 2001/08/26 Knowledge at your fingertips
  • Irish News 2001/08/27 The information is at your fingertips - but for a price
MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!
{{#if:| {{#if:<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«Wales, who is founder and CEO of San Diego-based Web portal Bomis, has spent about $150,000 of his own money developing Wikipedia. Technically, Wikipedia is owned by Bomis, but Wales and Sanger plan to set up a nonprofit to run the Web-based encyclopedia.»
 Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>|
(<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>)
}} 		Btn edit.gif
«Wales, who is founder and CEO of San Diego-based Web portal Bomis, has spent about $150,000 of his own money developing Wikipedia. Technically, Wikipedia is owned by Bomis, but Wales and Sanger plan to set up a nonprofit to run the Web-based encyclopedia.»
{{#if:<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>|
(<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>)
}}

}}

{{#if:| {{#if:<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«Wikipedia, which one might consider intellectual anarchy extruded into encyclopedia form with a chat feature thrown in, is stemming a tide against charging for content on the Web. But it will probably never dethrone Britannica, whose 232-year reputation is based upon hiring world-renowned experts and exhaustively reviewing their articles with a staff of more than a hundred editors.

"There are a lot of reference works on the Internet, but we don't concern ourselves about them too much," says Tom Panelas, director of communications at Britannica. "People are coming to realize that while there's a lot of information on the Internet, a lot of it is plain nonsense, and much of it is of questionable provenance. Being Britannica, we've always had a natural constituency of people who know Britannica is a name they can trust for reliable, well-written information."

To read Britannica on the Web you must pony up $50 a year, although you can read the first two paragraphs of articles for free. The company won't release subscription figures but claims that more than seven million users search britannica.com each month during the school year.

Walter Bender, executive director of MIT's Media Laboratory, believes that what makes Britannica a valuable resource is the scope and depth of its editing, and free Web-based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will probably never be able to compete with that.

"The downside is that [Britannica] cannot practically keep pace with the growth of knowledge and information," says Bender. "For example, Britannica still uses the entry on the city of Boston written almost twenty years ago by Jack Driscoll, former editor of the Boston Globe. The article was written in a timeless prose, but it no longer captures the essence of the city."

True, but Wikipedia's entry on Boston reads as follows: "The capital city of Massachusetts, USA. The greater Boston area has many suburbs, including Cambridge, Massachusetts."»
 Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>|
(<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>)
}} 		Btn edit.gif
«Wikipedia, which one might consider intellectual anarchy extruded into encyclopedia form with a chat feature thrown in, is stemming a tide against charging for content on the Web. But it will probably never dethrone Britannica, whose 232-year reputation is based upon hiring world-renowned experts and exhaustively reviewing their articles with a staff of more than a hundred editors.

"There are a lot of reference works on the Internet, but we don't concern ourselves about them too much," says Tom Panelas, director of communications at Britannica. "People are coming to realize that while there's a lot of information on the Internet, a lot of it is plain nonsense, and much of it is of questionable provenance. Being Britannica, we've always had a natural constituency of people who know Britannica is a name they can trust for reliable, well-written information."

To read Britannica on the Web you must pony up $50 a year, although you can read the first two paragraphs of articles for free. The company won't release subscription figures but claims that more than seven million users search britannica.com each month during the school year.

Walter Bender, executive director of MIT's Media Laboratory, believes that what makes Britannica a valuable resource is the scope and depth of its editing, and free Web-based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will probably never be able to compete with that.

"The downside is that [Britannica] cannot practically keep pace with the growth of knowledge and information," says Bender. "For example, Britannica still uses the entry on the city of Boston written almost twenty years ago by Jack Driscoll, former editor of the Boston Globe. The article was written in a timeless prose, but it no longer captures the essence of the city."

True, but Wikipedia's entry on Boston reads as follows: "The capital city of Massachusetts, USA. The greater Boston area has many suburbs, including Cambridge, Massachusetts."»
{{#if:<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>|
(<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>)
}}

}} 

New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You
{{#if:| {{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«Wikipedians, as they call themselves»
 Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>|
(<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>)
}} 		Btn edit.gif
«Wikipedians, as they call themselves»
{{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>|
(<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>)
}}

}}

{{#if:| {{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«In July Encyclopaedia Britannica began charging $5 a month for access.»
 Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>|
(<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>)
}} 		Btn edit.gif
«In July Encyclopaedia Britannica began charging $5 a month for access.»
{{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>|
(<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>)
}}

}}

{{#if:| {{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«That is the view of James J. O'Donnell, a professor of classical studies and vice provost for information systems at the University of Pennsylvania who examined the influence of digital media on writing in his book Avatars of the Word (Harvard University Press, 1998), I had a strong sense as I went in that I was in a community of people who were talking to each other, he said of his explorations of Wikipedia. The thing and the experience may be much more valuable for those who are creating it than it is for somebody who just walks in saying, 'So when is the Second Punic War and which one was that?' Mr. O'Donnell said. A community that finds a way to talk in this way is creating education and online discourse at a higher level. »
 Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>|
(<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>)
}} 		Btn edit.gif
«That is the view of James J. O'Donnell, a professor of classical studies and vice provost for information systems at the University of Pennsylvania who examined the influence of digital media on writing in his book Avatars of the Word (Harvard University Press, 1998), I had a strong sense as I went in that I was in a community of people who were talking to each other, he said of his explorations of Wikipedia. The thing and the experience may be much more valuable for those who are creating it than it is for somebody who just walks in saying, 'So when is the Second Punic War and which one was that?' Mr. O'Donnell said. A community that finds a way to talk in this way is creating education and online discourse at a higher level. »
{{#if:<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>|
(<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>)
}}

}}

2002

2003

Estratto da "http://biasco.ch/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_-_Press_Coverage/2001-2003&oldid=4766"