Wikipedia Vs Britannica: Suck it and see

Compare Wikipedia and Britannica

The vested interests that lie behind a constant carping against Wikipedia are much more than the corporate interests of the big publishers.

Wikipedia, being an online encyclopaedia that anyone (not just paid staff and consultants) can edit, challenges the whole ethos of neo-conservatism (or what I call the econo-rats, ie, economic rationalists).

The Wikipedia project has at its heart and soul a faith in humankind, altruism and generosity. At the heart and soul of conservatism is a skepticism of these, and a promotion of self-interest over community. Where the neo-cons gain influence, their values increase, and where community-minded enterprises gain influence, their values increase. With the neo-cons in many ways in the ascendancy today, is it any wonder that they love to hate people-based (not profit-based) enterprise?

But suck it and see for yourself
Encyclopaedia Britannica since 1768 has been pretty much unchallenged as the best encyclopaedia in the world. Feed it some search queries on topics you know something about. Then try the same queries on Wikipedia. I did with the following search terms, and out of five stars, overall I rate Wikipedia at four stars compared to half a star for Britannica:

Coffs Harbour in Britannica :: Coffs Harbour in Wikipedia

Permaculture in Britannica :: Permaculture in Wikipedia

Gregorian calendar in Britannica :: Gregorian calendar in Wikipedia

Samhain in Britannica :: Samhain in Wikipedia

Henry Lawson in Britannica :: Henry Lawson in Wikipedia

There is simply no contest. Apart from the greater content and useful graphics, the Wikipedia articles are richly hypertexted. And of course, I don't need to pay to get the full article because we Wikipedians aren't in it for money. Furthermore, Wikipedia gave me 25 external links for more information. Unlike Wikipedia and our Almanac, very few profit-based websites will ever give you that.

Of course Wikipedia isn't perfect. Its readers are currently working on 868,701 articles and there are bound to be some glitches, but they usually get corrected quickly -- if they don't, then you can have your say, unlike with the corporate encyclopaedias.

Support community over profits
But let's keep it in perspective and remember that in the age-old struggle between community versus corporate capitalism, the moneyed guys will never quit fighting. Neither should the people with the better cause quit, so let's counter the claims of the neo-cons (as with the racists, see below), whenever they are argued, as argued they will be at every opportunity. In other words, we can be activists for community values through supporting Wikipedia and similar projects, and it costs us nothing. That's an advantage we have that frustrates the neoliberals* as they don't understand the strategy or tactics. They simply do not understand why anyone would do something that can't be tallied in an accounts ledger. They are cynics who think they are born to rule the world:

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde at Wikiquote

If it's a bet between optimism and pessimism, spirit and cynicism, altruism and self-interest, I prefer to take the positive gamble every time even if I lose some of the time. On the whole, taken over a lifetime, I'm winning the bets and breaking the bank.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (yes, there are accuracy problems at Wikipedia, but also at Britannica)

Note that the Neoliberal page in Wikipedia is disputed -- a sign of Wikipedia's strength, not weakness. That is something that simply doesn't happen in corporate encyclopaedias or the conservative mindset as a whole -- human debate and dissent are discouraged, as with the Patriot Act.

Tagged: wikipedia, encyclopedia, encyclopaedia+britannica, progressive, anarchism, activism