Comments on: RIP Encarta http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/03/31/rip-encarta/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rip-encarta USC professor and author of The Wikipedia Revolution Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:18:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: » Microsoft Closes Encarta, But this Doesn’t Have to be the End The Wikipedian http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/03/31/rip-encarta/comment-page-1/#comment-311703 » Microsoft Closes Encarta, But this Doesn’t Have to be the End The Wikipedian Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:39:25 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/?p=370#comment-311703 [...] and “Ana Marie Cox” and author of the new book “The Wikipedia Revolution,” explained at his own blog why the news caught him by surprise: Because Microsoft could have kept it going indefinitely, given [...] [...] and “Ana Marie Cox” and author of the new book “The Wikipedia Revolution,” explained at his own blog why the news caught him by surprise: Because Microsoft could have kept it going indefinitely, given [...]

]]> By: Tom Corddry http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/03/31/rip-encarta/comment-page-1/#comment-311698 Tom Corddry Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:15:17 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/?p=370#comment-311698 Andrew, Thanks for snagging and posting my comments. Encarta was actually on both ends of the high fidelity analogy you make: compared to the print encyclopedias in existence when it was first released, Encarta was very cheap, much more up to date, offered much less in the way of quality images, improved rapidly, and in general was the "Wikipedia" of its time. It pretty much beat out the old print model on the same terms that it in turn was bested by Wikipedia. I wonder what will come along to replace Wikipedia? Andrew, Thanks for snagging and posting my comments. Encarta was actually on both ends of the high fidelity analogy you make: compared to the print encyclopedias in existence when it was first released, Encarta was very cheap, much more up to date, offered much less in the way of quality images, improved rapidly, and in general was the “Wikipedia” of its time. It pretty much beat out the old print model on the same terms that it in turn was bested by Wikipedia. I wonder what will come along to replace Wikipedia?

]]> By: andrew http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/03/31/rip-encarta/comment-page-1/#comment-311694 andrew Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:55:44 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/?p=370#comment-311694 Geoff, re: "worse is better" I think that's an interesting point, and definitely reminds me of my old comp sci days. I suppose I'm reluctant to use that specifically because the observation was more about software (and not content) and they bring up the point of "correctness" which just get muddied with the issue of encyclopaedic and information reliability. Rather, your point made me remember something else which is much simpler: the idea of "good enough" content being able to usurp "more perfect" paid players. Most users of Wikipedia, having experienced its usefulness and content, and knowledgeable about its theoretical drawbacks pretty much come to the same conclusion it seems, as Voltaire: perfect is the enemy of good. Release early, release often, and with flagged revisions, you'll have a steady march towards perfection. Geoff, re: “worse is better” I think that’s an interesting point, and definitely reminds me of my old comp sci days. I suppose I’m reluctant to use that specifically because the observation was more about software (and not content) and they bring up the point of “correctness” which just get muddied with the issue of encyclopaedic and information reliability. Rather, your point made me remember something else which is much simpler: the idea of “good enough” content being able to usurp “more perfect” paid players.

Most users of Wikipedia, having experienced its usefulness and content, and knowledgeable about its theoretical drawbacks pretty much come to the same conclusion it seems, as Voltaire: perfect is the enemy of good. Release early, release often, and with flagged revisions, you’ll have a steady march towards perfection.

]]> By: andrew http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/03/31/rip-encarta/comment-page-1/#comment-311693 andrew Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:50:24 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/?p=370#comment-311693 Axel, good hearing from you. I'm wondering if you can expand on that a bit. When you say "we" do you mean a specific community? All? de, or en? In the English language Wikipedia, there has been a major swing away from exerting fair use. The problem of course with fair use is that it's all case law, so you press your case until you get pushback. As such, putting fair use images into Wikipedia when it comes to putting it in other forms outside the US. Axel, good hearing from you. I’m wondering if you can expand on that a bit. When you say “we” do you mean a specific community? All? de, or en? In the English language Wikipedia, there has been a major swing away from exerting fair use. The problem of course with fair use is that it’s all case law, so you press your case until you get pushback. As such, putting fair use images into Wikipedia when it comes to putting it in other forms outside the US.

]]> By: Axel Boldt http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/03/31/rip-encarta/comment-page-1/#comment-311692 Axel Boldt Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:49:00 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/?p=370#comment-311692 "Because Wikipedia has a strict “free” edict on content, especially images and multimedia, it will always be at a disadvantage in having visuals that are unique and under copyright protection." I disagree: for unique and educationally important copyright protected content, we invoke the fair use doctrine in a clean manner, appropriating the content for Wikipedia. Commercial projects are not as willing to do that; it is they who are at a disadvantage. “Because Wikipedia has a strict “free” edict on content, especially images and multimedia, it will always be at a disadvantage in having visuals that are unique and under copyright protection.”

I disagree: for unique and educationally important copyright protected content, we invoke the fair use doctrine in a clean manner, appropriating the content for Wikipedia. Commercial projects are not as willing to do that; it is they who are at a disadvantage.

]]> By: llywrch http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/03/31/rip-encarta/comment-page-1/#comment-311689 llywrch Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:04:42 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/?p=370#comment-311689 Andrew, I'm a little surprised you didn't point out the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better" rel="nofollow">"worse-is-better"</a> dynamic here, that a worse -- but adequate -- product can enter a market, steal market share & from a growing revenue its owners can improve it. The same dynamic described in the book <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point_(book)" rel="nofollow">"The Tipping Point."</a> It's the same dynamic which helped Microsoft undercut better products & gain dominance in their chosen markets. One could say Microsoft had the tables turned on them. Geoff Andrew, I’m a little surprised you didn’t point out the “worse-is-better” dynamic here, that a worse — but adequate — product can enter a market, steal market share & from a growing revenue its owners can improve it. The same dynamic described in the book “The Tipping Point.”

It’s the same dynamic which helped Microsoft undercut better products & gain dominance in their chosen markets. One could say Microsoft had the tables turned on them.

Geoff

]]>