On Mar 25, 7:42=A0pm, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
> grusl wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 7:03 pm, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> > (*)) wrote:
> > > Tim C. wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:43:38 +0000, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,=
> > > > _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> > > > >The stuff I read on wiki is neither controversial or hugely popular=
. It
> > > > >is still contains innaccurate, incomplete and highly subjective opi=
nion.
>
> > > > How does it compare with similar entries in the Encyclopaedia
> > > > Britannica, for example?
>
> > > I doesn't. EB is one a far higher level The articles are generally
> > > written by eminent scholars in their fields, or at the least writers
> > > with good reputations and a lot of experience. Just doing a quick chec=
k
> > > just now, I notice the Stravinsky entry is by two noted musicologists,=
> > > one of whom (Taruskin) is probably _the_ main authority on the compose=
r,
> > > who completely blasted away many of the Stravinsky myths in the 90s wi=
th
> > > his huge work, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions. So much for the
> > > 'status quo' Mixi refers to.
>
> > Wasn't there a recent survey that suggested EB and WP have
> > approximately the same error rate?
>
> Tim cited it, and I couldn't care. I was asked to compare similar
> entries in EB and WP, and I'm hardly going to do that on a subject I
> have no specialist knowledge of.
>
> --
Jolly good. I've been away. Great thread to come back to, though. It's
surreal!
Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore
|