英國(guó)大不列顛百科全書

An interview at the Sydney Morning Herald with Encyclopedia Britannica president Jorge Cauz revealed that the encyclopedia plans to roll out on its web site user contributed content within the next 24 hours. The change in policy is clearly aimed squarely at Wikipedia, which Cauz criticized as being “very uneven” and containing “plenty of cracks.”

《大不列顛百科全書》總裁豪爾赫·考茲在《悉尼先驅(qū)晨報(bào)》上接受采訪時(shí)透露，該百科全書計(jì)劃在未來24小時(shí)內(nèi)在其網(wǎng)站上推出用戶貢獻(xiàn)的內(nèi)容。 政策的改變顯然直接針對(duì)了維基百科，卡茲(Cauz)批評(píng)維基百科“非常不平衡”并且包含“大量裂縫”。

Cauz said that adding user created content to the encyclopedia would help readers to better learn about the subjects they’re researching by giving them a chance to edit, update, or create their own content. But if there was one theme the permeated the entire interview, it was that Britannica is sick of playing second fiddle to Wikipedia online. Cauz even took a pot shot at Google for allowing Wikipedia entries to rank so highly.

Cauz說，將用戶創(chuàng)建的內(nèi)容添加到百科全書中將使讀者有機(jī)會(huì)編輯，更新或創(chuàng)建自己的內(nèi)容，從而幫助讀者更好地了解他們正在研究的主題。 但是，如果整個(gè)采訪中都有一個(gè)主題，那就是大不列顛厭倦了在線播放維基百科的第二小提琴。 Cauz甚至因?yàn)樵试SWikipedia條目排名很高而在Google上大發(fā)雷霆。

“If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia,” he said. “Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?”

他說：“如果我要擔(dān)任Google的首席執(zhí)行官或Google的創(chuàng)始人，我會(huì)非常不高興，世界上最好的搜索引擎仍會(huì)繼續(xù)作為第一個(gè)鏈接提供，” Wikipedia。 “這是他們能做到的最好的嗎？ 這是他們算法所能做的最好的嗎？”

We found in September that Wikipedia does indeed rank very highly on Google for the most searched for terms, appearing on the first page of results for the majority of them. However, the greater question is whether adding community created content will really help Britannica compete.

我們?cè)?月份發(fā)現(xiàn)，對(duì)于搜索得最多的術(shù)語， 維基百科確實(shí)在Google上排名很高，大多數(shù)術(shù)語都出現(xiàn)在搜索結(jié)果的首頁(yè)上。 但是，更大的問題是，添加社區(qū)創(chuàng)建的內(nèi)容是否真的會(huì)幫助Britannica競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。

Encyclopedia Britannica won’t just be turning over its content to the masses to edit wiki-style. Rather, community edits will be vetted by the company’s staff of expert writers before being posted to the site. Eventually, changes made via the community content submission process could find their way into the printed version of the encyclopedia, says Cauz, which is reprinted every two years.

不列顛百科全書不僅僅將其內(nèi)容移交給大眾來編輯Wiki風(fēng)格。 相反，社區(qū)編輯將在發(fā)布到站點(diǎn)之前，由公司的專家作家團(tuán)隊(duì)審核。 Cauz說，最終，通過社區(qū)內(nèi)容提交過程進(jìn)行的更改可能會(huì)進(jìn)入百科全書的印刷版，每?jī)赡曛赜∫淮巍?

However, Britannica is not the first Wikipedia alternative to try competing based on authority. Most notably is Citizendium, a Wikipedia competitor that requires authors to provide their real name (Britannica will, too), and only publishes articles that have been approved by “qualified” experts. I took a look at Citizendium in April 2007, a month after it launched, and found it lacking at the time. Though it was only a month old, the encyclopedia had just 13 approved articles and 1625 being written — leaving it well short of Wikipedia.

但是，大英百科全書不是第一個(gè)嘗試基于權(quán)威進(jìn)行競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的Wikipedia替代方案。 最著名的是Citizendium ，它是Wikipedia的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手，它要求作者提供真實(shí)姓名(Britannica也將提供)，并且僅發(fā)表經(jīng)“合格”專家認(rèn)可的文章。 在Citizendium推出一個(gè)月后的2007年4月，我看了一下它，發(fā)現(xiàn)當(dāng)時(shí)還缺少它。 盡管只有一個(gè)月的歷史，但該百科全書只有13篇已獲批準(zhǔn)的文章，并撰寫了1625篇文章，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于Wikipedia。

Though it was difficult to make judgments about quality, especially with so few articles approved at the time, I found that Citizendium was not markedly better the Wikipedia, and was in some cases noticeably worse. Almost two years later, the site has just 89 approved articles and just over 9100 under development — compare that to Wikipedia, which is growing at a rate of over 1400 articles per day. The real measure of success, however, is traffic, and in that department Citizendium is not performing very well. Compete data shows that while Wikipedia gets almost 60 million visitors per month, Citizendium barely registers.

盡管很難對(duì)質(zhì)量做出判斷，尤其是當(dāng)時(shí)批準(zhǔn)的文章很少，但我發(fā)現(xiàn)Citizendium并不明顯優(yōu)于Wikipedia，在某些情況下明顯更差。 差不多兩年后，該站點(diǎn)只有89篇已獲批準(zhǔn)的文章，而正在開發(fā)的文章超過9100篇，與Wikipedia相比，后者每天以1400篇之多的速度增長(zhǎng)。 但是，成功的真正衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是流量，而該部門的公民表現(xiàn)不佳。 競(jìng)爭(zhēng)數(shù)據(jù)顯示，雖然Wikipedia每月有將近6000萬訪問者，但Citizendium幾乎沒有注冊(cè)。

So can Britannica, taking an almost identical approach to Citizendium, really compete with Wikipedia? Well, there are some key differences that put Britannica in a better position to compete. First, while no where near the popularity of Wikipedia, Britannica is no slouch when it comes to traffic — Compete shows Britannica.com with a monthly audience of nearly 3 million visitors.

那么，大不列顛(Britannica)對(duì)公民身份采取幾乎相同的方法，真的可以與維基百科競(jìng)爭(zhēng)嗎？ 好吧，有一些關(guān)鍵差異使大不列顛處于更好的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)狀態(tài)。 首先，雖然Wikipedia的普及率不高，但Britannica的流量卻絲毫不遜色-Compete顯示Britannica.com每月的訪問者接近300萬。

Second, Britannica has a much larger library of content to start with. Unlike Citizendium, which was starting from a basically blank slate. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Britannica’s database of articles has 46 million words — Wikipedia, meanwhile, had over 600 million words in 2006. But likely, no one visiting Britannica.com is going to complain about a lack of available material.

其次，不列顛尼加最初擁有一個(gè)更大的內(nèi)容庫(kù)。 不像公民公民，它是從一個(gè)基本空白的板塊開始的。 根據(jù)《悉尼先驅(qū)晨報(bào)》的報(bào)道，大不列顛的文章數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)有4600萬個(gè)單詞，而Wikipedia 在2006年有超過6億個(gè)單詞。 但是很可能，沒有人訪問Britannica.com會(huì)抱怨缺乏可用材料。

So will user contributed content help Britannica to compete with Wikipedia? The bottom line answer is: probably not. 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.

那么，用戶貢獻(xiàn)的內(nèi)容會(huì)幫助Britannica與Wikipedia競(jìng)爭(zhēng)嗎？ 底線答案是：可能不會(huì)。 維基百科將繼續(xù)是網(wǎng)絡(luò)上最常見的參考站點(diǎn)，因?yàn)樗慕Y(jié)果對(duì)于大多數(shù)人的查詢而言足夠準(zhǔn)確。 僅添加用戶內(nèi)容將不會(huì)使Britannica成為更具吸引力的參考目的地。

However, increased engagement with users can only be a good thing for the encyclopedia, and will undoubtedly raise traffic. Even though user generated content won’t ultimately help Britannica to take a bite out of Wikipedia’s dominance on the web, it will likely help strengthen their brand by building a community around it.

但是，增加與用戶的互動(dòng)對(duì)于百科全書來說只是一件好事，并且無疑會(huì)增加流量。 即使用戶生成的內(nèi)容最終不會(huì)幫助Britannica擺脫Wikipedia在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的統(tǒng)治地位，但它可能會(huì)通過圍繞社區(qū)建立社區(qū)來幫助增強(qiáng)其品牌。

翻譯自: https://www.sitepoint.com/britannica-plans-to-take-on-wikipedia-with-community-edits/

英國(guó)大不列顛百科全書

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_大不列颠计划通过社区编辑接受维基百科的全部?jī)?nèi)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(wǎng)站內(nèi)容還不錯(cuò)，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。