BlockM

August 1st, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^

I'd be ok with a more academic Wikipedia that was very strictly reviewed that had a (very) small subscription fee. Encarta can't keep up with the amount of information available, as you'd need a thousand volumes, but I don't know that I'd trust Wikipedia for research needs unless they get really serious about the quality of their content.

Joined: 07/03/2008

MGoPoints: 40727

jmblue

August 1st, 2009 at 8:51 PM ^

There is no way Wikipedia could exist in its current state as a pay site. The fact that it's free for anyone to use and edit is what's so attractive. It is dependent on a huge number of anonymous users, many of whom probably aren't technically qualified (in the sense of having a degree in the subject) to write their articles. Make it a pay site, written only by experts in the field, and you'd end up with a smaller, much less-frequently updated site - in other words, a clone of Encarta.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102802

Brodie

August 1st, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^

I'd say the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are qualified, or at least well versed, in the subjects they work on. While we can all look and say "OMG LOL SOMEONE ADDED 'FATASS' TO THE CHARLIE WEIS PAGE", the fact is that most articles are generally as good as (and some much more comprehensive than) traditional encyclopedia entries.

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10712

jmblue

August 1st, 2009 at 10:03 PM ^

No, I mean they aren't qualified in an academic sense (having a degree and/or being a professional in the subject they're writing about). As long as that continues, the academic community will never take Wikipedia seriously. (That and the fact that many articles aren't well-sourced.) That's the big negative of with having an entirely open site; you don't really know where a lot of the information is coming from. The big problem isn't so much the obvious vandalism (the "BOBBY IS GAY" stuff that gets deleted instantly) as it is people throwing in their own opinion or anecdotal evidence into what is supposed to be a neutral, verifiable article. The big positive, of course, is having a ton of activity and constant revision/creation of new articles. That would be lost if it were restricted behind a paywall and had the same criteria for writing articles that other encyclopedias have.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102802

Zone Read Left

August 1st, 2009 at 2:31 PM ^

if so then you would know their #1 pack the stadium ranking is bogus. Sure, all of their students go to football games, but the same is true at Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama, atc. At least Michigan also packs Yost, and the situation at Crisler is improving (and already light years ahead of Penn State's bball attendance).

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 474