英國大不列顛百科全書

A few days ago we reported that Encyclopedia Britannica was planning to allow user edits to its online (and eventually print) reference products. The policy change was put in place as part of an effort to compete with Wikipedia, but we wondered if would have any real effect.

幾天前，我們報道了《大不列顛百科全書》正計劃允許用戶對其在線(并最終打印)參考產品進行編輯。 這項政策變更是與Wikipedia競爭的一部分，但我們想知道是否會產生真正的效果。

“Will user contributed content help Britannica to compete with Wikipedia? The bottom line answer is: probably not,” we concluded. “Wikipedia will continue to be the web’s top general reference destination because its results are accurate enough for most people’s queries. Simply adding user content won’t make Britannica a more attractive reference destination.”

“用戶提供的內容會幫助Britannica與Wikipedia競爭嗎？ 最重要的答案是：可能不會。 維基百科將繼續成為網絡上最主要的參考站點，因為它的結果對于大多數人的查詢來說足夠準確。 僅添加用戶內容并不會使Britannica成為更具吸引力的參考目的地。”

However, we still think Britannica is making a smart move by allowing users more control over the encyclopedia content. Increased engagement with their users can only be a net positive for the brand, and tapping into the collected knowledge of the crowd could help broaden the scope of their reference coverage and make sure errors are caught and corrected.

但是，我們仍然認為Britannica正在通過允許用戶對百科全書內容進行更多控制來做出明智的舉動。 與用戶的更多互動只會對該品牌產生正面影響，而利用所收集的人群知識可以幫助擴大他們的參考范圍，并確保發現并糾正錯誤。

One of the reasons Wikipedia has become so popular is that the range of topics it covers is so startlingly broad you can find an article on just about any topic. Britannica could never hope to match that depth of coverage using its traditional model of paying individual expert writers to author entries on each topic. By opening up their content to user contributions, they are potentially opening up for expansion. Vetting those user edits for accuracy will ensure that the encyclopedia maintains its high quality standards.

維基百科如此受歡迎的原因之一是其涵蓋的主題范圍如此之廣，以至于您可以找到有關任何主題的文章。 Britannica永遠不會希望使用其傳統的付費個人專家作者就每個主題撰寫文章的傳統模式來匹配這種深度的報道。 通過向用戶貢獻開放其內容，他們潛在地可以擴展。 審核這些用戶編輯的準確性將確保該百科全書保持其高質量標準。

Another reason Wikipedia has come to dominate reference sites is its speed. When new information about a subject arises — such as the death of a famous person, or the sale of a company — it is added to Wikipedia almost instantly. That update speed is something that Britannica’s traditional model could never achieve. Though vetting user contributions will mean they won’t reach the site as fast as Wikipedia, it does likely mean that new content will be able to be added at a faster clip than in the past.

維基百科主導參考站點的另一個原因是它的速度。 當出現有關某個主題的新信息時(例如，某名人的死亡或公司的出售)，該信息幾乎立即被添加到Wikipedia中。 這種更新速度是Britannica的傳統模型無法實現的。 盡管審核用戶的貢獻將意味著他們訪問網站的速度不會像Wikipedia那樣快，但這確實意味著可以比過去更快地添加新內容。

However, the reasons that Wikipedia is so popular, are also the reasons that it is so potentially dangerous. Information spreads fast on Wikipedia, but so to does disinformation. And that can be a real problem given how much power it holds. Hitwise reported last week that of the top 5 encyclopedia sites, Wikipedia gets 97% of the visits. That’s an almost complete monopoly of the space. Further, we noted in September that Wikipedia is one of the most powerful sites on Google. So disinformation on the site can have very damaging consequences.

但是，維基百科如此受歡迎的原因，也是其潛在危險的原因。 信息在Wikipedia上Swift傳播，但虛假信息也是如此。 考慮到它擁有多少電量，這可能是一個真正的問題。 Hitwise 上周報告說，在前5大百科全書網站中，維基百科獲得了97％的訪問。 那幾乎是整個空間的壟斷。 此外，我們在9月注意到Wikipedia是Google上功能最強大的網站之一。 因此，網站上的虛假信息可能會造成非常嚴重的后果。

That’s why, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is proposing flagged revision system that would place some articles under the care of expert reviewers who would fact check any major changes. What prompted Wales to make the suggestion was edits to articles for two US senators that incorrectly reported them dead last week. The false edits were corrected within minutes, but on a site as high traffic as Wikipedia, minutes could potentially be long enough to fan the flames of rumor. And sometimes rumors on the site have stayed unchanged in entries for months.

因此，維基百科的創始人吉米·威爾士(Jimmy Wales) 提出了一種帶有標記的修訂系統 ，該系統將某些文章置于專家審閱者的照顧下，他們將檢查任何重大更改。 促使威爾士提出該建議的是對兩名美國參議員的文章的編輯，他們錯誤地報告了他們上周死亡。 錯誤的編輯在幾分鐘之內就得到了糾正，但是在像維基百科這樣的高流量網站上，幾分鐘的時間可能足以引起謠言。 有時，網站上的謠言在幾個月內一直保持不變。

“This nonsense would have been 100% prevented by Flagged Revisions. It could also have been prevented by protection or semi-protection, but this is a prime example of why we don’t want to protect or semi-protect articles – this was a breaking news story and we want people to be able to participate (so protection is out) and even to participate in good faith for the first time ever (so semi-protection is out),” wrote Wales.

“這些廢話本來可以通過標記修訂來100％防止的。 也可以通過保護或半保護措施來防止這種情況發生，但這是為什么我們不想保護或半保護物品的一個典型例子-這是一個重大新聞，我們希望人們能夠參與其中(威爾士寫道：“因此，保護??已經取消了，甚至是第一次有誠意參加(因此，半保護已經取消了)。”

The flagged revision system has been in place on the German Wikipedia for a few months, but the up to 3 week approval time for changes in unacceptable to Wales. The system for the English version that he is proposing would have a much shorter approval time — less than a week — and only be active on a subset of Wikipedia articles. Though he doesn’t say which articles, or how they’d be chosen, presumably articles that have already been flagged as dealing with a contentious issue or are already receiving a greater than average number of edits would be prime candidates.

標記的修訂系統已在德國Wikipedia上部署了幾個月，但威爾斯無法接受長達3周的變更批準時間。 他提議的英文版系統的批準時間要短得多(不到一周)，并且只能在部分維基百科文章上使用。 盡管他沒有說哪些文章或如何選擇，但大概已經被標記為處理有爭議的問題或已經收到超過平均數量的編輯的文章將是最佳選擇。

So while one major encyclopedia is moving toward user edits, another is planning efforts to curtail them. Both, however, are likely moving in a direction that will lead to more accurate and reliable reference content.

因此，雖然一個主要的百科全書庫正在朝著用戶編輯的方向發展，但是另一本正在計劃減少它們的工作。 但是，兩者都可能朝著導致更準確和可靠的參考內容的方向發展。

翻譯自: https://www.sitepoint.com/maybe-britannica-is-on-to-something/

英國大不列顛百科全書

總結

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的英国大不列颠百科全书_也许大不列颠即将来临的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網站內容還不錯，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。