Comments on: Encyclopedia of Life: Better Than Wikipedia?

By: bwl zwei null » Encyclopedia of Life: Grundlagenforschung im Web 2.0

bwl zwei null » Encyclopedia of Life: Grundlagenforschung im Web 2.0 — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:57:00 +0000

[...] zeigen sich Jens Schröder (popkulturjunkie) und Martin Kunzelnick. Bei Techcrunch wird die interessante Frage gestellt, ob dieses Projekt bessere Daten als die Wikipedia wird [...]

By: Better Software for Great Companies: Mercury Grove

Better Software for Great Companies: Mercury Grove — Wed, 16 May 2007 00:35:38 +0000

[...] of Mr. Arrington, his popular blog Techcrunch recently posted an article (written by Duncan Riley) about the Encyclopedia of Life. EOL is a truly inspiring new collaborative effort between several [...]

By: Humor Blog

Humor Blog — Mon, 14 May 2007 17:43:03 +0000

Wikipedia is great for defacing. They call it vandalism, but I don’t see that.. If I can get someone to do a book report with completely incorrect information then my job has been done.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:42:46 +0000

@Rado Z. — watch the video again, they show a dropdown listing different languages

By: Rado Z.

Rado Z. — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:28:14 +0000

I am user of Wikipedia and I like it very much. The point of wikipedia is also multilanguage - I could find a lot of usefull things in my native (slovenian) language and others, not english languages (portugues, croatian, … )

I agree with somebody here who said :
The Encyclopedia of Life has a different audience, and different goals

I should add :

it is only english

If you can make it multilanguage (like Wikipedia) I am sure much more
people should visit this site.

cheers

By: Tony Stai

Tony Stai — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:17:58 +0000

I hope that EOL does a better job than Wiki because numerous times I’ve helped my kids with homework and the information in Wiki about animals was painful to digest.

Here’s hoping competition brings a better product to both of them!

By: Chris Peters

Chris Peters — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:10:07 +0000

I’m not sure that it’s an apples-to-apples comparison. Wikipedia isn’t trying to be the end-all resource for every topic. Its focus is more on breadth than depth. Don’t get me wrong; it is an admirable undertaking.

If you want to know about a particular species, EOL will be better, hands down. I’m hoping to see a lot of link-over and reference to EOL on Wikipedia.

One thing that I think will make EOL “better” for its subject matter is its content contributors. We won’t see as much corruption as we see on Wikipedia now. Wikipedia is becoming the new DMOZ. People that “own” the content are becoming a little too Nazi for my tastes…

By: Bujar Kocana

Bujar Kocana — Mon, 14 May 2007 08:57:06 +0000

Of course:The encyclopedia of life is better that wikipedia.Has very useful scientific information for the students

By: David Fox

David Fox — Mon, 14 May 2007 06:30:16 +0000

The Biomimicry Institute is working on a database/wiki to improve access to relevant biological information - organized by design and engineering function. Innovators working on desalination, for instance, could learn about how nature filters—mangrove roots, kidneys, and sea bird salt glands.
http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/edu-portal.htm

By: business|bytes|genes|molecules

business|bytes|genes|molecules — Mon, 14 May 2007 03:08:26 +0000

[...] Further Reading: TechCrunch [...]

By: Johann Romefort

Johann Romefort — Mon, 14 May 2007 01:44:35 +0000

Also note that EOL seems to be based on Semantic Web technologies, enabling far better query possibilities than wikipedia.

More technicals aspects here :
http://eolinformatics.mbl.edu/.....ework.html

Johann

By: Remi

Remi — Sun, 13 May 2007 20:12:47 +0000

maybe better than wikispecies too. I ‘m glad it wasn’t my 12.5 million.

By: Emad Hassan kenona

Emad Hassan kenona — Sun, 13 May 2007 19:16:02 +0000

Th blogs are very benifit ,that is great to hear the subscribers

By: Rons Dixon

Rons Dixon — Sun, 13 May 2007 19:00:53 +0000

I agree with Deepak. The one greatest flaw with wikipedia is its greatest strength, “open community”. Just for a second imagine if history could be re-written by a “open community”. Crazy to even think about it. But EOL has its place, just like vertical searches has their place in the “google world”.

When it comes to scientific data and analysis, that cannot however be left to the masses, regardless of what you think thats the truth. I was in the process of creating an advertisment for wikipedia, where a doctor is performing a operation, runs into a problem then he pulls out his laptop and does a search on wikipedia for the answer.

The answer was however modified by his 17 year old son and instead of removing the lung, he removed the heart. hahahaha

how crazy would that be?

By: sean percival

sean percival — Sun, 13 May 2007 18:38:54 +0000

I hope this one is also controlled by power hungry moderators who have nothing better to do as well!

By: Deepak

Deepak — Sun, 13 May 2007 18:29:19 +0000

I am not sure the question is really valid. The Encyclopedia of Life has a different audience, and different goals. Wikipedia is targeted at a more general audience. While there is a certain minimal standard that should be maintained, Wikipedia articles should link out to vertical wiki’s (Wikia/EoL) when more depth is required on any subject.

By: APE

APE — Sun, 13 May 2007 17:57:10 +0000

What if I write EOL founder was a member of flower power, tree hugger, and sexually married pretty flowers?

By: aaron

aaron — Sun, 13 May 2007 17:56:46 +0000

what’s the revenue model?

By: Erik Möller

Erik Möller — Sun, 13 May 2007 17:15:23 +0000

The Wikimedia Foundation is represented in EOL’s Institutional Council; I am the representative and attended the recent launch meeting. We do not view the projects as being in competition at all; both aim to contribute to a commons of knowledge. We are exploring licensing options and tools that will allow both projects to interoperate and share content.

By: STFU

STFU — Sun, 13 May 2007 16:41:01 +0000

No.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Sun, 13 May 2007 16:26:30 +0000

It sounds like a great concept, but with a “completion date” of 10 years in the future, I have to wonder about the project. Who even can imagine what the web will be like in 10 years?

By: Dexter Zaf

Dexter Zaf — Sun, 13 May 2007 16:11:31 +0000

Good service…This one has an advantage with Wiki with its scientific encylopedia.

By: eltrev

eltrev — Sun, 13 May 2007 15:32:07 +0000

Coming from a critter geek who knows too many species names and posts too many insect macro shots to flickr (for no good reason) and who can’t leave a log unturned during a hike looking for something new, this project makes me a bit teary-eyed. I absolutely love it. I can’t wait to contribute.

@#11 - I believe Arkive.org is partnering / merging content with EOL. you’ll notice it in the demo vid.

By: kucau

kucau — Sun, 13 May 2007 15:25:00 +0000

Better than wikipedia? yes and no. Yes if u see that the data being scrutinized for authenticity by scientists all over the world. No, scientific data are not wide enuff on EOL. Species data just wont cut it compare to wide scientific data compared to wikipedia

By: Ivan Pope

Ivan Pope — Sun, 13 May 2007 15:18:01 +0000

Better Than Wikipedia? No way - not in a serious collaborative community way. I mean, sure, throw money and an agency at this stage of a product and it can look great - but that doesn’t mean anything. Even if they implement and it still looks as it does on their funky video, it doesn’t mean anything. They have to build the sense of community and then let the community build. I’d take a small guess, from their language of ’scientists and the rest of you’ that it’s not going to be much fun for the rest of us. There’s a big question - why? Why do it? It looks like a big ticket publishing venture.
Of course, it might just work out. But its no more likely to than hundreds of other projects that don’t have funky videos to impress us with.