What is Digg?86 Comments
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -2/+61Too little, Too late
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -2/+39We promote the inevitable. The information age is among us, and anyone standing in the way of it's accessibility has no place in it.
- santaliqueur, on 04/20/2008, -1/+25You act as if you did anything with it before.
- akkibaba, on 04/20/2008, -2/+26Said Wikipedia : "This news should be printed in Big Whoop Magazine".
(stolen from Futurama) - inactive, on 04/20/2008, -0/+22what the hell am i going to do with the 4GB cracked copy on my comp now?
- greatcaffeine, on 04/20/2008, -1/+22Does anyone use Encyclopedia Britannica anymore? Really?
- woofers07, on 04/20/2008, -1/+19Funny, I remember being a kid and encyclopedia britannica was more of a social status symbol for families I think. I'm pretty sure it was like $2500 for the whole set. I think it's been at least 15 years since I opened an encyclopedia for anything, good story huh?
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -0/+14Do you hear that, Encyclopedia Britannica? That is the sound of inevitability.
- worldinmyeyes, on 04/20/2008, -0/+14I may be thinking this alone, but this is a great way for them to still get out their propaganda messages to the general public. Oh, hogwash, an Encyclopedia always tells the truth and has no ulterior motive, most will say. Wrong I say.
"Propaganda Has a New Name - Encyclopedia Britannica
The Encyclopedia Britannica is widely used in education. But what if it is trumpeting a specific political message? That is the argument presented in this article as the author surveys a number of listings and concludes, "When (the CD and DVD version of) Britannica discusses anything that is liberal, they spend half the article criticizing and refuting it. When conservative causes are presented, there is usually not such a two-sided presentation. There is no critique of the conservative worldview and its inadequacies." Some of the items are telling. When we search for 'liberalism,' for example, we ae taken to an article from the National Review which asserts that liberals cannot deal with terrorism. The term 'altruism' is described as a failed philosophy. Based on this item, I certainly think that the editors of the Encyclopedia should be called to account. Teachers, meanwhile, may want to consider affixing warning labels to the disk. William Du Bois, MyMac.Com, February 6, 2003."
http://www.downes.ca/post/5056 - HigherLogic, on 04/20/2008, -3/+16Site doesn't even load in Opera. What a POS development team (not TC, but britannica.com). Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with Wikipedia.
- dirTdogE, on 04/20/2008, -6/+18Very smart move. Lets see if it brings them any success.
In any case, Wikipedia will continue to rule. - MortalynFlux, on 04/20/2008, -1/+12If I need to do serious research, I use EBSCO host research database. My school provides it for me as part of my tuition. Otherwise it's Google, which usually puts Wikipedia articles at the top of the search results.
Unless you are in elementary school, you should not be using an Encyclopedia for your homework.
On the bright side, I haven't had many smarmy Encyclopedia salesmen knock on my door lately. - RobotBuddha, on 04/20/2008, -1/+11What bugs me a bit though, is that nobody seems to care about the most important information. Torrent sites abound with scanned comics, but just try to find science journals in there.
- greatcaffeine, on 04/20/2008, -0/+10We expect information to be free because of Wikipedia. It's a beautiful thing, really.
- Risingashes, on 04/20/2008, -0/+8You can't just begrudgingly steal innovative ideas and expect to reclaim past success.
The time of Britannica is over, there is no value in it anymore. Game over. - marnaq, on 04/20/2008, -0/+8I didn't know what this article was about so I looked it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Bri ... - bamafun, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7seriously though, isnt it suprising they didn't do this sooner after the success of Wikipedia?
- vanbacon, on 04/20/2008, -2/+9I wish I could digg you 100 time again Truer words have never been spoken
- dbr_onix, on 04/20/2008, -2/+8Clearly commercial software companies are utterly doomed because no-one is using Windows/OS X, or any of the other countless proprietary applications...
- whereiseljefe, on 04/20/2008, -1/+7Clear up space in anticipation of downloading a leak of the new Opeth album?
- asskey, on 04/20/2008, -1/+7I dugg him up too. 99 more to go!
- roflganker, on 04/20/2008, -1/+6Hey, I remember encyclopedias. I thought they had gone extinct.
- gcnaddict, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5and you guys wonder why I complain about the digg algorithm.
- NSResponder, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5Britannica was screwed before the internet caught on. Back when the first CD-ROM encyclopedias were shipped, they completely missed the boat.
-jcr - gameforge, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5What worries me is the other professors you have which find Wikipedia articles acceptable as cited academic sources. They are not.
What you'll notice, though, is that the majority of the articles you read on Wikipedia while doing academic research already have the sources in them (sometimes over a hundred). And that's the sheer beauty of Wikipedia - I had an assignment in a research writing class to write an argumentative research paper which used fifteen sources, each of different types; and Internet sources of any kind were largely frowned upon, let alone Wikipedia.
Of course, Wikipedia was the first site that I hit, and it provided me thirteen of my fifteen sources... still needed an interview and a source that came from within the school's academic network, and I was done.
Just because you can't cite a Wiki article, doesn't mean it's not a freaking academic gold mine.
Still, doesn't Britannica cite its sources? - kystorms, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5I know I will be slammed for this but...... nothing will ever replace the feeling of opening a book and reading it. I actually have a complete set of encyclopaedia's from 1942 and another from 1985. Yes, the information contained is now seriously out of date but its part of history to have a set, I guess I just love my books too much. Good article tho
- RobotBuddha, on 04/20/2008, -2/+6Neither wikipedia or britannica should be accepted. It's bad research to use anything but a primary source. Both have their uses as a jumping off point, but I'm surprised to see a prof. who wouldn't throw a paper into the trash if either were cited.
- damnyooneek, on 04/20/2008, -0/+415 years ago a set of Encyclopedias were a couple hundred dollars now they just sit in my basement soaking up moisture.
- rebotfc, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4How the ***** is it a 'very smart move' ? It is a desperate move, and only that.
- dbr_onix, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3spam.
--------------------------------------------
http://localhost/ - chaoswings, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3It is not only too late but it's a bad idea to begin with. I mean I have a blog and even though I fit the description of "web publisher" I would not use their services because it's just too much hassle. Despite what people say wikipedia is pretty accurate. I would never use it on a research paper but for alll other things it's fine.
- Adys, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Have you actually tried? Science documentation is all across the net.
- piwy, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Because they get it standard on the pc they just bought. Linux is something you have to consciously choose for.
- RobotBuddha, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Up to date journals, aside from plos? Abstracts, sure, but it's pretty rare that I see actual journals. And never larger sets of them.
- GhostyBoy, on 04/20/2008, -3/+6Except that Wikipedia is almost completely unreliable for certain topics because editors have a political motivation or agenda.
- peeweejd, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2britannica is only making this free to people ho put the links up. eveyone else will have to pay to see teh article joe schmo linked too. who in their right mind is going to do that? hey are trying to get bloggers to shill for them.
- rebotfc, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2shill, much?
- Chupacabra82, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3Goes to show you what happens when you sit on your high seat and don't innovate or try to improve your product for years.
Just curious: Is Blockbuster still in trouble? - whereiseljefe, on 04/20/2008, -2/+4Viewing content is not copyright infringement, distributing content is.
- hiro, on 04/20/2008, -2/+4Hi Dad
- delirium1086, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Gee, why do people still use Windows then?
- dstz, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2I had bought the 200$ CD edition of the Universalis (they've been bought by Britannica) and never reinstalled it after discovering wikipedia a few years ago. Traditional encyclopedia articles feel like glorified editorials compared to the lean and to the point wordings of wikipedia.
- mateo60, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2I find Wikipedia pretty trustworthy in general. However, I don't always assume it's gospel. But when an article is well sourced, which I find the vast majority to be so, it's invaluable. Wikipedia is definitely not perfect, but it's amazing that it's as good as it is. Of course, for something important, I'd never use Wikipedia as my only source. But I wouldn't necessarily use the Encyclopedia as an only source either.
- binaryloop, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2make it free for everyone and we'll consider using it. you got to come up with alternate business models. Affiliate linking, advertising, printed versions, reprint licensing, CD and DVD versions, etc. But, nobody (except institutions) are going to pay for access just to read an article. If they would have gone free 10 years ago there would have been no need for Wikipedia.
- jaobedoza, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1internet is killing most of the printed media, encyclopedias are next!
- cslawren, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1dugg for "category five hurricaned"
- EndUser99, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1This will come in very hand for when I write that report on Space.
- Ryosen, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1One more thing, HigherLogic. I dugg you up and have sent a message on to the dev team of the main site to check into the issue.
- macewan, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1They sent me a 1 year free trial. I do think it's too little too late though. Even in the naming of the site they blog with it's very evident they're out of touch with how the web works - thinking it's eb... something another. They purchase a domain name that is easy to remember. They should make it completely open and free. Then hire Zeldman to style it. His work with WP is awesome.
- MortalynFlux, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1News stories are usually written by journalists with a superficial understanding of the subject involved. If you paper requires original sources written by the top experts on the topic, or multiple scientific studies that provide a thorough background on the topic, your town's "Times" is not going to cut it.
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is