Goodbye, Encarta!

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Linux.com has an article about a really cool program called IndyWiki (http://www.linux.com/feature/124811). It isn't 100%, but still a great proof of concept

The program is essentially a front-end for Wikipedia. Hard to explain why that is cool, but it is! It makes Wikipedia feel more like a really big source of information - a proper encyclopedia - than just a big web site.

[~LoKe]

I haven't heard Encarta mentioned in years.

[bobbocanfly]

I haven't heard Encarta mentioned in years.

Probably because it was totally rubbish and Wikipedia had more than it, for free. Seriously i had Encarta for a few weeks when i downloaded office, nothing beats Wikipedia for me.

[forrestcupp]

Except that Encarta is reliable and not everything in Wikipedia is true.

[Erik Trybom]

Actually Wikipedia fares quite well against established encyclopedias. Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm for example. Sure, it was a small test and a limited sample (scientific articles) but nevertheless Wikipedia was surprisingly reliable. Nowadays most articles are also provided with links to the sources from which the information is taken.

I acknowledge that both the established encyclopedias and the wikis have their strenghts and weaknesses, but to simply say that one is reliable and the other is not is wrong.

[forrestcupp]

Don't get me wrong. I think Wikipedia is usually reliable. It is about the only encyclopedia I ever use. You just have to be careful with it, whereas with Encarta or Britannica, you're a lot less likely to get unreliable information.

[Christmas]

Except that Encarta is reliable and not everything in Wikipedia is true.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't know about the latest versions, but Encarta 2000 had a lot of misleading information regarding Romania, for example. Articles about animals or geographic places seemed to look fine, but when it came to history (for example the communism era), Encarta really sucked.

[ticopelp]

Encarta was gloriously terrible.

And it pays to check your sources no matter what they are.

[urukrama]

Wikipedia is nice and often handy, but not very reliable (especially for Hindu-related material, which is what I know best).

I still prefer Britannica above all else, either the CD-ROM version or the multi-volume printed version (yeah, I'm old-fashioned ;-))

[Xbehave]

Cant say im a fan of wikipedia at the moment! theyre trying to be a real encyclopedia at the cost of everything else really holds them back.

To me systems based on wikipedia make such as citizendium make alot more sense as encyclopeidas, wikipeida needs to realise its not an encyclopedia and start acepting content again.
Ideally wikipeida will start having a peer review system on some articles meaning that articles on science, history, people can be more reliable than they currently are, while allowing articles on comics, bands & small places.
Alternatively wikipedia just acepting more content and places like citizendium taking off would be cool

((but then again i dream of a meta wiki as a way of getting round wikipedias policies (imagine all the best wikis mashed together to provide the best information for your needs wookiepedia, uncyclopedia, citizendium (its much better for getting information out of science articles), etc))

OFC it will never happen as there current admins are worse than a bunch of gnomes devs

p.s yes that is a double godwins reference, if you see it as flamebait then relax its just a joke

[alwiap]

I remember back in the day when in college someone cited Wikipedia in a speech and the teacher said "Wow, you got your information from a fake encyclopedia that anyone can enter information about" and the student was ridiculed

Not to say that you still can't edit articles falsely, but it's legitimacy (at least in American schools) seems to have gone up lately :)

[urukrama]

Not to say that you still can't edit articles falsely, but it's legitimacy (at least in American schools) seems to have gone up lately :)

Not where I work (UK), though. Most teachers I know don't allow their students to quote wikipedia in their essays (with certain exceptions).

[venator260]

Yeah... it's taken for granted at my school that Wikipedia is not to be cited. I've used Wikipedia several times for papers, but always found the information somewhere else before citing it. Wikipedia is good for a general overview, but shouldn't be used as a source in a paper or speech.

[~LoKe]

Wikipedia is fine. Most of their hard statements are backed up by a source, so just quote the source they link to at the bottom of the page in the references section. =/

[Anduu]

This app is a great idea...can't wait to see where they go with it.