Full Version: Oxford University Press Launches the Anti-Google
Jon Stokes, Oxford University Press Launches the Anti-Google, Ars Technica.
And, once again... the pitfall:
QUOTE
As of today's launch, OBO is either $29.95 a month or $295.00 a year. This pricing will be too steep to fit in most student budgets, so OUP is probably counting on generating most of its revenues from institutional subscribers.
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 21st April 2010, 10:14am) 
Arse Technica? Are you sure it's not a Wikipedia clone?
Fabulous. I've been calling for something like this for a long time, and I seem to recall having said that OUP would be the one to do it. Sign me up.
QUOTE
The idea is to alleviate the twin problems of Google-induced data overload, on the one hand, and Wikipedia-driven GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), on the other.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 21st April 2010, 11:04am)
QUOTE
The idea is to alleviate the twin problems of Google-induced data overload, on the one hand, and Wikipedia-driven GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), on the other.
It looks interesting, but doesn't solve the old problem of micropayments for micro-bits of information. You might get a GREAT bibliography out of it; enough to praise the lord that most of the background research for your major project is over. But now you've got to GET the stuff. That means physically going to a couple of large university libraries and winkling it out of stacks and photocopying it. Maybe later scanning it if you can, typing it into the wordprocessors again if you can't. Just like the old days.
Fine if it's your term paper. Not so great if you were just curious about something, or had 3 hours you could spend finding out about it as a side project, but had no more to spend.
Of course, if you're Richy Rich you can pay any library to photocopy articles and pages of books FOR you. And at $25 a pop you can even get articles online from JSTOR which will keep you from having to spend $25 for somebody to drive to a library, find, photocopy, and type it back into a wordprocessor format and email it to you.
So this is good headway toward solving a certain class of scholarly problem, but as for making library contents available to the masses, no. Again, it's going to take the 99 cent or even 25 cent iArticle (where are you Apple when we really need you?) to get that job done.
[url="http://news.google.com/news/url?fd=R&sa=T&url=http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/feuds/oxford_university_press_takes_the_wiki_out_of_wikipedia_159125.asp&usg=AFQjCNEexi7nn7-MMtTfaHhCCpJipmoeZA"][img]http://nt0.ggpht.com/news/tbn/SBxlnMunCdPvdM/6.jpg[/img]
mediabistro.com (blog)[/url]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Oxford University Press takes the Wiki- out of [b]Wikipedia[/b]
mediabistro.com (blog)
A new program by the Oxford University Press attempts to take the Wikipedia model--hyperlinked repositories of ...
and more »
View the article
mediabistro.com (blog)[/url]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Oxford University Press takes the Wiki- out of [b]Wikipedia[/b]
mediabistro.com (blog)
A new program by the Oxford University Press attempts to take the Wikipedia model--hyperlinked repositories of ...
and more »
View the article
It seems exactly like Britannica.
The problem with Britannica is that they used one or two scholars and had them representing huge chunks of space. Definitely not really expertise.
Compare: Oxford's Aeschylus
Wiki's Aeschylus
I can't see the full thing, but the inline citation model of Wikipedia is far superior to the "general knowledge thrown down by an 'expert' without any real ability to distinguish the sources of information".
By the way, the literaryencyclopedia already has the same vetting process.
The problem with Britannica is that they used one or two scholars and had them representing huge chunks of space. Definitely not really expertise.
Compare: Oxford's Aeschylus
QUOTE
Aeschylus (also spelled Aischylos or Aiskhylos) was born c. 525/4 bce to an aristocratic family in Eleusis, a town in western Attica, part of the territory controlled by Athens. He was one of the earliest tragic poets. He first entered a tragic competition c. 499 (dramatic competitions were introduced in the 530s bce ) and won first prize for the first time in 484. In the 470s he visited Sicily, where he was the guest of Hieron of Syracuse
Wiki's Aeschylus
QUOTE
There are no reliable sources for the life of Aeschylus. He was said to have been born in c. 525 BC in Eleusis, a small town about 27 kilometers northwest of Athens, which is nestled in the fertile valleys of western Attica,[3] though the date is most likely based on counting back forty years from his first victory in the Great Dionysia. His family was both wealthy and well established; his father Euphorion was a member of the Eupatridae, the ancient nobility of Attica.[4] As a youth, he worked at a vineyard until, according to the 2nd-century AD geographer Pausanias, the god Dionysus visited him in his sleep and commanded him to turn his attention to the nascent art of tragedy.[4] As soon as he woke from the dream, the young Aeschylus began writing a tragedy, and his first performance took place in 499 BC, when he was only 26 years old;[3][4] He would eventually win his first victory at the City Dionysia in 484 BC.
I can't see the full thing, but the inline citation model of Wikipedia is far superior to the "general knowledge thrown down by an 'expert' without any real ability to distinguish the sources of information".
By the way, the literaryencyclopedia already has the same vetting process.
This is already under discussion here, so a little help mods?
It seems exactly like Britannica.
The problem with Britannica is that they used one or two scholars and had them representing huge chunks of space. Definitely not really expertise.
Compare: Oxford's Aeschylus
Wiki's Aeschylus
I can't see the full thing, but the inline citation model of Wikipedia is far superior to the "general knowledge thrown down by an 'expert' without any real ability to distinguish the sources of information".
By the way, the literaryencyclopedia already has the same vetting process.
The website seems to be buggy and I keep getting error messages, so I haven't had a look at the whole thing, but I fail to take your point. You're just saying that having inline citations is preferable to not having them?
As the main purpose of this service appears to be providing a giant annotated bibliography, I don't know why they would citations in the brief introduction.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 22nd April 2010, 4:45am)
It seems exactly like Britannica.
The problem with Britannica is that they used one or two scholars and had them representing huge chunks of space. Definitely not really expertise.
Compare: Oxford's Aeschylus
QUOTE
Aeschylus (also spelled Aischylos or Aiskhylos) was born c. 525/4 bce to an aristocratic family in Eleusis, a town in western Attica, part of the territory controlled by Athens. He was one of the earliest tragic poets. He first entered a tragic competition c. 499 (dramatic competitions were introduced in the 530s bce ) and won first prize for the first time in 484. In the 470s he visited Sicily, where he was the guest of Hieron of Syracuse
Wiki's Aeschylus
QUOTE
There are no reliable sources for the life of Aeschylus. He was said to have been born in c. 525 BC in Eleusis, a small town about 27 kilometers northwest of Athens, which is nestled in the fertile valleys of western Attica,[3] though the date is most likely based on counting back forty years from his first victory in the Great Dionysia. His family was both wealthy and well established; his father Euphorion was a member of the Eupatridae, the ancient nobility of Attica.[4] As a youth, he worked at a vineyard until, according to the 2nd-century AD geographer Pausanias, the god Dionysus visited him in his sleep and commanded him to turn his attention to the nascent art of tragedy.[4] As soon as he woke from the dream, the young Aeschylus began writing a tragedy, and his first performance took place in 499 BC, when he was only 26 years old;[3][4] He would eventually win his first victory at the City Dionysia in 484 BC.
I can't see the full thing, but the inline citation model of Wikipedia is far superior to the "general knowledge thrown down by an 'expert' without any real ability to distinguish the sources of information".
By the way, the literaryencyclopedia already has the same vetting process.
The website seems to be buggy and I keep getting error messages, so I haven't had a look at the whole thing, but I fail to take your point. You're just saying that having inline citations is preferable to not having them?
As the main purpose of this service appears to be providing a giant annotated bibliography, I don't know why they would citations in the brief introduction.
So, you've got a new service that's behind a paywall with a rather high fee, and has content and style of organization most likely to appeal to specialized academics rather than the general public. Hence, about 99.999% of the general population of the world will still prefer to use sources that are free and usable, even if less expertly crafted, and this new service will at best get a tiny specialized niche market.
Doubleplusungood, the new site is utterly useless as a drama engine.
QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 22nd April 2010, 10:42am)
That one is anti-google. This one is a non-Wiki Wikipedia.
Yeah, they both have the same basic thing being promoted in two different ways. I bet Oxford wanted it that way so they could say "we beat everyone".
QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 22nd April 2010, 10:42am)
The website seems to be buggy and I keep getting error messages, so I haven't had a look at the whole thing, but I fail to take your point. You're just saying that having inline citations is preferable to not having them?
Yes. When you read a good biography or good academic study, they tend to have many inline citations so you can see where the previous arguments are and where the original research is. An encyclopedia, by definition (i.e. tertiary source) shouldn't have any original research so everything should be cited.
QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 21st April 2010, 5:55pm)
Fabulous. I've been calling for something like this for a long time, and I seem to recall having said that OUP would be the one to do it. Sign me up.
There already is something like it. It has been around for quite a long time. Plus, we have scholarpedia and similar things. Oxford is entering into a rather crowded market.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 21st April 2010, 7:38pm)
Of course, if you're Richy Rich you can pay any library to photocopy articles and pages of books FOR you. And at $25 a pop you can even get articles online from JSTOR which will keep you from having to spend $25 for somebody to drive to a library, find, photocopy, and type it back into a wordprocessor format and email it to you.
25 a pop? Holy crap. I'll send people articles from JSTOR at 5 dollars a pop. : D
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 22nd April 2010, 7:20am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 21st April 2010, 7:38pm)
Of course, if you're Richy Rich you can pay any library to photocopy articles and pages of books FOR you. And at $25 a pop you can even get articles online from JSTOR which will keep you from having to spend $25 for somebody to drive to a library, find, photocopy, and type it back into a wordprocessor format and email it to you.
25 a pop? Holy crap. I'll send people articles from JSTOR at 5 dollars a pop. : D
Thieving bastard. What's your address?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.