※ [本文转录自 Anthro 看板] 作者: finavir (爆肝中...囧) 看板: Anthro 标题: [文化] 维基 vs. 大英百科 vs.《自然》 时间: Mon Jan 8 08:01:12 2007 之前曾经提到维基百科的几个弱点。Joshua Barker教授的这篇文章 和相关回应，虽然简短，但蛮有趣。 原文和回应刊载於： Metropolis 347: City Cultures/Urban Anthropology http://metropolis347.blogspot.com/ 多伦多大学人类学系ANT347: Metropolis课部落格 Friday, March 24, 2006 Wikipedia vs Encylopaedia vs Nature posted by Barker I mentioned in passing yesterday that Nature had published a paper comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia to Enyclopaedia Britannica. This was a few months ago so I was surprised to see that today the BBC is reporting that EB is fighting (pdf) back by accusing Nature of doing a shoddy study. Nature then provides a response (pdf). This controversy transcends urban anthropology. Essentially we are watching 19th century encylopedism fight it out with 20th century science and 21st century socialware. Stay tuned to this one as it could have far-reaching consequences for how truth is arbited in our society. BBC's report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm EB's fighting back: http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf Nature's response: http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf ＊ Joshua Barker为多伦多大学人类学系助理教授。 学生的回应和Barker教授的回覆： http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19648738&postID=114321074910875653 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 74.98.239.53 ※ 编辑: finavir 来自: 74.98.239.53 (01/08 08:06) ※ 编辑: finavir 来自: 74.98.239.53 (01/08 08:07) --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.229.108.64