https://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2012/1202/Scholarly-Authority-in-a-Wikified-World.cfm
William Cronon ist der Präsident der American Historical Association und schrieb in einem lesenswerten Beitrag zur Wikipedia:
Long, complicated interpretations exploring subtly interacting historical causes in carefully contextualized analyses or beautifully flowing narratives—these one will never find on Wikipedia.
What one will find is a breadth and intellectual scope that put even the largest traditional encyclopedias to shame. Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia blows away most competitors for topics involving scientific or technical information, not only because it attracts volunteers especially knowledgeable in these areas, but because it can give such topics all the space they need and revise them literally by the minute. Compare Wikipedia with Britannica on "Fermat's Last Theorem" and you'll see what I mean. On topics of current interest, including many environmental subjects central to my own work, Wikipedia has a nimbleness that even newspapers have trouble matching. [...]
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
William Cronon ist der Präsident der American Historical Association und schrieb in einem lesenswerten Beitrag zur Wikipedia:
Long, complicated interpretations exploring subtly interacting historical causes in carefully contextualized analyses or beautifully flowing narratives—these one will never find on Wikipedia.
What one will find is a breadth and intellectual scope that put even the largest traditional encyclopedias to shame. Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia blows away most competitors for topics involving scientific or technical information, not only because it attracts volunteers especially knowledgeable in these areas, but because it can give such topics all the space they need and revise them literally by the minute. Compare Wikipedia with Britannica on "Fermat's Last Theorem" and you'll see what I mean. On topics of current interest, including many environmental subjects central to my own work, Wikipedia has a nimbleness that even newspapers have trouble matching. [...]
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Anglist (Gast) meinte am 2012/02/05 20:17:
Beat heißt hier ganz normal "schlagen" im Sinne von "(eine Schlacht/ein Spiel) gewinnen". Mit Unterdrücken hat das eigentlich nichts zu tun.
KlausGraf antwortete am 2012/02/05 20:48:
Sonntags haben einige zuviel Zeit
Vor allem irgendwelche Besserwisser, die hier reinstolpern und mich meinen verbessern zu können. ICH WEISS, WAS TO BEAT BEDEUTET, auch wenn mein Englisch besser sein könnte. Es kam mir auf eine griffige HEADLINE (deutsch: Überschrift) an, ich erwog siegreich bekämpfen, schlagen und entschied mich aus Gründen des Effekts für Unterdrücken, da genau das hinter den hasserfüllten Anweisungen "Don't cite Wikipedia" steht. Die Wikipedia ist aber nicht mehr so einfach loszuwerden.
