Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-16/Britannica

Preece's son
How do you know the IP edit was from Preece's son? -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, the following edits of the page make it clear. -- lucasbfr talk 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Italicize
A suggestion: All instances of "Britannica" or "Encyclopaedia Britannica", which refers to the Britannica article instead of the encyclopedia, should be italicized or otherwise marked to avoid confusion. --Deryck C. 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The fetish of "up-to-dateness"

 * Warren E. Preece, the famous editor who shepherded the Britannica through the difficult transition to the 15th edition, passed away on the same day that the Wikipedia article became featured. Preece's son updated his Wikipedia biography almost immediately, although this was reverted a day later for lack of a reliable source. After confirmation, his death was recorded, and sundry improvements to his page were made. His online Britannica biography has still not been updated as of this writing (17 April 2007).

Incredible. William Preese's son updates his father's Wikipedia bio and it gets reverted because its not a reliable source. Britannica gets sideswiped for not updating biographies at Wikipedia's breakneck speed.

This is just arrogant crap from Wikipedia. Trashing reasonable sources and passive-aggressive swipes at competitors are all par for the course aren't they?

Witness Wikipedia's ongoing desperation to be not a second behind on the Virginia Tech Massacre, proving once again that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but a massively multiplayer blog where history is rewritten moment by moment in the interests of accuracy.

Let me give you a hint: reaction speed has nothing to do with scholarship or historical accuracy - and neither has Wikipedia. --86.140.68.58 11:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, I guess you're not a fan.


 * That said, I agree that we should not appear, however indirectly, to be scoring "points" off of the Britannica. Death should always summon a dignified response in us, especially when the dead have made significant contributions, as Warren E. Preece did.  The poor wording was my fault, and I acknowledge my lapse of judgment.  I was admittedly annoyed with the Britannica for taking so long to recognize someone who had worked incredibly hard for them; but my personal feelings have no place here and I should not have allowed them to color this news bulletin.  I apologize to my fellow Wikipedians, to the Britannica and even to you, my good gadfly, who I daresay will bring out the best in me yet. ;) Willow 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I really do not think an apology is necessary. We did not demean Preece in anything written above. This is a news source. The fact that the man died and the article was promoted on the same day is newsworthy. If another publication besides Wikipedia reported this fact I doubt you would be voicing such a strong opinion. The fact that Wikipedia updated his article quicker than Britannica is to be expected. The very nature of Wikipedia enables quick changes. The speed that these changes took place in relation to Britannica only serves to highlight the differences between the Encyclopedias. These differences are also newsworthy.


 * His son's edit was reverted because the edit, while in good faith, violated Wikipedia policy. Such edits require reliable published sources in order to be verifiable. I am sure Britannica requires its writers to provide citations for their work so it can be verified. We strive to do the same.


 * Also, your criticism of the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre is unfounded. The speed at which the article is written or changed has nothing to do with the content of the article. The article was changed to reflect published reliable sources. Just as most professional history is written. Professional history is written and rewritten moment by moment through the constant evaluation of new source material. As sources are found, published, or change, the scholarly opinion on a subject changes. While professional historians and Britannica are bound by the time it takes their latest work to be published by traditional means, Wikipedia is not. This again is simply another difference between Britannica and Wikipedia.


 * I am going to reword the beginning sentence of the paragraph dealing with the updating of the Preece article. Also, I am going to put the timeline dealing with the updating back into this article as it is newsworthy.


 * If this article offended you, I apologize. That was not my nor Willow's intent. Please feel free to contact me on my discussion page if you would like to discuss this subject further. KnightLago 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)