In yesterday’s blog posting, I mused about the quality of information on Wikipedia about Canadian mining companies–basically said it is lousy. Then I wondered if the open model of Wikipedia would beat out the closed model of the Encyclopedia Britannica and other sites where you pay a fee to access information.
I repeat below an insightful comment made on my posting. It is from Patrick Littlejohn, a Masters Student at the University of British Columbia.
I’d bet that each model will find a niche that it’s best at. For example, Wiki blows EB out of the water for all things computer science, statistics, high level mathematics, number theory, astronomy, and physics.
I think this is because the types of people who know most about these topics have worked in open source style projects before (especially computer scientists). It’s also good for pop culture stuff because there’s a rabid fan base with time to spare for every movie, TV show, etc you can think of.
It’s worse for applied physics/chemistry, engineering, mining, business, both because of the demographics that use Wiki (more young people than old) and because the movers and shakers in this latter category are too busy moving and shaking to add to Wiki.
In my mind Wiki is the ultimate starting point, rather than the be-all & end-all. If you treat it as what it is – a quantum encyclopedia where facts may or may not be correct, then it is an excellent resource, no matter what you’re doing.
I am impressed and persuaded by his point that Wikipedia information on mining etc. is “worse” because the movers and shakers in the industry are busy moving and shaking.
The issue then is can the industry do anything about it, and if it can do something, should it do something about it?
(more…)
Read Full Post »