- Swallowing Yahoo may make Microsoft want to take a nap
- ISO approves OOXML as standard
- Maintaining integrity on the Net
- Microsoft caves, in part, to online computing
- Eyewitness to H-1B scammers
- Social networking hits the bar scene big screen
- Is the slow economy hurting high-tech sales?
- Take the smarts out of smartphones
- U.S. Immigration [USCIS] changes selection process for H-1B visas
- Will the iPhone force Apple to change course?
November 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Merriam-Webster Visual Dictionary Online, for when Wikis are just not good enough
We all know the problems Wikipedia had in the past over misinformation and their efforts to correct errors in their community-generated information.
Now from Merriam-Webster, a fairly well-respected source of information comes what the company calls the Visual Dictionary Online.
It reminds more of a great encyclopedia, albeit limited to the amount of topics it covers, more than just a dictionary.
It is a great teaching source for those who just like learning new things or for those in some form of educational environment.
My guess is the site will become extremely popular and its popularity will embolden not only Merriam-Webster and its partner, QA International, that creates the graphics, to expand its topics but other encyclopedia companies as well will follow.
Yes, I know Britannica has a site but they charge $70 a year, for unlimited access to their 32 volumes.
Not a bad price but if there are enough potential advertisers that could very well change to a free service.
Wikipedia has the benefit of immediacy. This is what we now call being in real time. Traditionally a publisher of encyclopedias uses scores of editors and takes years to incorporate changes.
Nevertheless shouldn’t there be a premium placed on accuracy over immediacy?
I’m not naïve enough to believe everything I read, even from a so-called expert, but at the same time, I think being well-informed requires us to trust those experts who take the trouble to become informed to the nth degree in their specialized field.
Posted by Ephraim Schwartz on November 19, 2007 08:20 AM
RATE THIS ARTICLE:
-
- COMMENTS
And how do you know that the articles in a traditional encyclopedia are accurate?
Because their written by experts? Peer reviewed? Lots of bias and outright mis-information comes from experts too.
Trust but verify. Make sure you're sources are independent and not just quoting some 3rd party.
Posted by: Mark Levison at November 21, 2007 11:51 AMNice jab at Wikipedia, but there is not stopping it.
Posted by: anonymous at November 21, 2007 01:39 PMMerriam-Webster's Visual Dictionary is worse than disappointing.
'ecosystem' - no results
'ecology' - no results
'environment' - only result is as part of a golf course
The entry for
gardening deals with tools, but has nothing about soil.
I'll trust a community-generated visual dictionary instead, thanks. Not all of Wikipedia has annotated visual images, but it beats what I've seen of Merriam Webster.
Merriam-Webster, get behind me, Satan.
