Comments on: The (in)accuracy of long-tail Wikipedia articles – can you help improve mine? https://rossdawson.com/the-accuracy-of-long-tail-wikipedia-articles-can-you-help-improve-mine/ Keynote speaker | Futurist | Strategy advisor Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: jheuristic https://rossdawson.com/the-accuracy-of-long-tail-wikipedia-articles-can-you-help-improve-mine/#comment-4038 Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:14:00 +0000 https://rossdawson.com/?p=6176#comment-4038 In reply to Ross Dawson.

Just makes me a bit uneasy when a much-touted “encyclopedia” gives more cover to a minor 1960s comic book character than 100 years of the Renaissance…

]]> By: Ross Dawson https://rossdawson.com/the-accuracy-of-long-tail-wikipedia-articles-can-you-help-improve-mine/#comment-4037 Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:54:00 +0000 https://rossdawson.com/?p=6176#comment-4037 In reply to jheuristic.

Wikipedia is certainly pretty good at popular culture! For philosophy there are indeed probably better sources…

]]> By: jheuristic https://rossdawson.com/the-accuracy-of-long-tail-wikipedia-articles-can-you-help-improve-mine/#comment-4036 Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:04:00 +0000 https://rossdawson.com/?p=6176#comment-4036 Another major problem is that the Wikipedia entry for “Ironman II” is 9,940 words. For ’16th Century Philosophy” there are 65 words. Apparently, Gwyneth Paltrow is more important than Francis Bacon.

]]>