英國(guó)大不列顛百科全書(shū)

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(bào)道了《大不列顛百科全書(shū)》正計(jì)劃允許用戶(hù)對(duì)其在線(并最終打印)參考產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行編輯。 這項(xiàng)政策變更是與Wikipedia競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的一部分，但我們想知道是否會(huì)產(chǎn)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(hù)提供的內(nèi)容會(huì)幫助Britannica與Wikipedia競(jìng)爭(zhēng)嗎？ 最重要的答案是：可能不會(huì)。 維基百科將繼續(xù)成為網(wǎng)絡(luò)上最主要的參考站點(diǎn)，因?yàn)樗慕Y(jié)果對(duì)于大多數(shù)人的查詢(xún)來(lái)說(shuō)足夠準(zhǔn)確。 僅添加用戶(hù)內(nèi)容并不會(huì)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?nèi)匀徽J(rèn)為Britannica正在通過(guò)允許用戶(hù)對(duì)百科全書(shū)內(nèi)容進(jìn)行更多控制來(lái)做出明智的舉動(dòng)。 與用戶(hù)的更多互動(dòng)只會(huì)對(duì)該品牌產(chǎn)生正面影響，而利用所收集的人群知識(shí)可以幫助擴(kuò)大他們的參考范圍，并確保發(fā)現(xiàn)并糾正錯(cuò)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(guān)任何主題的文章。 Britannica永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)希望使用其傳統(tǒng)的付費(fèi)個(gè)人專(zhuān)家作者就每個(gè)主題撰寫(xiě)文章的傳統(tǒng)模式來(lái)匹配這種深度的報(bào)道。 通過(guò)向用戶(hù)貢獻(xiàn)開(kāi)放其內(nèi)容，他們潛在地可以擴(kuò)展。 審核這些用戶(hù)編輯的準(zhǔn)確性將確保該百科全書(shū)保持其高質(zhì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

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(dǎo)參考站點(diǎn)的另一個(gè)原因是它的速度。 當(dāng)出現(xiàn)有關(guān)某個(gè)主題的新信息時(shí)(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(tǒng)模型無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)的。 盡管審核用戶(hù)的貢獻(xiàn)將意味著他們?cè)L問(wèn)網(wǎng)站的速度不會(huì)像Wikipedia那樣快，但這確實(shí)意味著可以比過(guò)去更快地添加新內(nèi)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(xiǎn)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(gè)真正的問(wèn)題。 Hitwise 上周報(bào)告說(shuō)，在前5大百科全書(shū)網(wǎng)站中，維基百科獲得了97％的訪問(wèn)。 那幾乎是整個(gè)空間的壟斷。 此外，我們?cè)?月注意到Wikipedia是Google上功能最強(qiáng)大的網(wǎng)站之一。 因此，網(wǎng)站上的虛假信息可能會(huì)造成非常嚴(yán)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(chuàng)始人吉米·威爾士(Jimmy Wales) 提出了一種帶有標(biāo)記的修訂系統(tǒng) ，該系統(tǒng)將某些文章置于專(zhuān)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(duì)兩名美國(guó)參議員的文章的編輯，他們錯(cuò)誤地報(bào)告了他們上周死亡。 錯(cuò)誤的編輯在幾分鐘之內(nèi)就得到了糾正，但是在像維基百科這樣的高流量網(wǎng)站上，幾分鐘的時(shí)間可能足以引起謠言。 有時(shí)，網(wǎng)站上的謠言在幾個(gè)月內(nèi)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(huà)本來(lái)可以通過(guò)標(biāo)記修訂來(lái)100％防止的。 也可以通過(guò)保護(hù)或半保護(hù)措施來(lái)防止這種情況發(fā)生，但這是為什么我們不想保護(hù)或半保護(hù)物品的一個(gè)典型例子-這是一個(gè)重大新聞，我們希望人們能夠參與其中(威爾士寫(xiě)道：“因此，保護(hù)??已經(jīng)取消了，甚至是第一次有誠(chéng)意參加(因此，半保護(hù)已經(jīng)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(biāo)記的修訂系統(tǒng)已在德國(guó)Wikipedia上部署了幾個(gè)月，但威爾斯無(wú)法接受長(zhǎng)達(dá)3周的變更批準(zhǔn)時(shí)間。 他提議的英文版系統(tǒng)的批準(zhǔn)時(shí)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(méi)有說(shuō)哪些文章或如何選擇，但大概已經(jīng)被標(biāo)記為處理有爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題或已經(jīng)收到超過(guò)平均數(shù)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(gè)主要的百科全書(shū)庫(kù)正在朝著用戶(hù)編輯的方向發(fā)展，但是另一本正在計(jì)劃減少它們的工作。 但是，兩者都可能朝著導(dǎo)致更準(zhǔn)確和可靠的參考內(nèi)容的方向發(fā)展。

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

英國(guó)大不列顛百科全書(shū)

總結(jié)

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?jī)?nèi)容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問(wèn)題。

如果覺(jué)得生活随笔網(wǎng)站內(nèi)容還不錯(cuò)，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。