Yes, it’s the first Western Civilization Smackdown!
Number of paragraphs in Wikipedia entry:
John Keats: 7
The Matrix: 62
It’s over, folks! Cult Sci-Fi Flick Starring Keanu Reeves does some serious whoop-ass on Consumptive Romantic Poet Who Writes Odes!
Maybe Prince Charles does have a reason to bitch that technology is hurting culture
see
http://dealarchitect.typepad.com/deal_architect/2005/10/technology_inno_4.html#
Let’s face it Wikipedia (english version) is American pop culture Crapsonomy.
Interesting material for sociological research, but an encyclopedia?
Come on…
is this elitist snobbery i see before me?
is this elitist snobbery i see before me?
Hardly, but still Keats is one of the biggest authors in history. Shouldn’t he be found in a encyclopaedia? That is just sad if we start saying old genious do not have any space in new boks and Encyclopaedias. However, I agree on that just counting the number of records inside coevering the subjects may not be the best measure.
Anyhow it illustrates on of the problems with Wikipedia, which still a good product, but have some “child decices”. The other problems I discuss here.
It doesn’t have to be over:
a) The entries on “The Matrix” could be deleted due to copyright issues on behalf of the MPAA or other copyright holders.
b) we should wait until Google finishes its book scan and then compare the number of Google search results on both topics.
Google will provide (and already does) a measurement on culture and zeitgeist.
Best regards,
Holger
I really like your blog, but this argument is poor. The real question is whether the article on Keats is good, not whether it’s better or worse than the Matrix article.
If Brittanica has sixty-two paragraphs on Keats compared to wikipedia’s seven (which may well be the case), then you’d have a stronger argument. What you’re doing now is like saying that Google sucks at finding information on John Keats because it only has 856,000 hits for him compared to 17,700,000 on the Matrix.