I love Wikipedia but I’ve been more and more annoyed at it lately: more spam, more thinly veiled advertising, more political slant. And as always articles turn into a long list of facts and lack a coherent story and writing style.
Going back to EB has been very refreshing: high quality, concise, thought out articles. You can actually read them in one shot and it’s enjoyable.
Of course EB has its problems and I’m afraid that it’s in that spot where it’s still reaping the benefits of a hundred years of serious investment and prestige but is quickly declining in coverage of more recent changes.
Britannica has a uniquely high-quality collection of general knowledge. Many of their current articles are written by domain experts, sometimes leading experts. (In the past, people like Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud wrote articles for Britannica.) They also own Merriam-Webster, a highly-respected dictionary.
I wonder if that content trains their AI and how much difference it makes.
Also, is there value in training an AI on a dictionary? It would lead to poor writing style.
A printed version of the English Wikipedia, in the style of Britannica would occupy over 3,500 volumes. I think survival in this case is more like clinging on.
christina97 ·7 hours ago
Going back to EB has been very refreshing: high quality, concise, thought out articles. You can actually read them in one shot and it’s enjoyable.
Of course EB has its problems and I’m afraid that it’s in that spot where it’s still reaping the benefits of a hundred years of serious investment and prestige but is quickly declining in coverage of more recent changes.
Show replies
mmooss ·10 hours ago
I wonder if that content trains their AI and how much difference it makes.
Also, is there value in training an AI on a dictionary? It would lead to poor writing style.
Show replies
WarOnPrivacy ·11 hours ago
beardyw ·7 hours ago
dgeiser13 ·12 hours ago
Show replies