Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Gilgamesh in Wikipedia and Britanica Online

Expand Messages
  • Marc Cooper
    I have posted a file containing the Britanica Online article on Gilgamesh and the Wikipedia article on Gligamesh. You can access it at
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 4, 2006
      I have posted a file containing the Britanica Online article on
      Gilgamesh and the Wikipedia article on Gligamesh. You can access it at

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/files/

      One is certainly more reliable than the other, but that isn't the
      whole story. The two articles differ in viewpoint. Anyone care to
      comment on the differences?

      Marc Cooper
      Missouri State University
    • Paul James Cowie
      One difference can be immediately identified between the Gilgamesh articles in Britannica Online and Wikipedia: While the Britannica article has clearly
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 4, 2006
        One difference can be immediately identified between the Gilgamesh
        articles in Britannica Online and Wikipedia:

        While the Britannica article has clearly benefited from scholarly
        input at some stage in the past and is therefore _presently_ somewhat
        more reliable than the Wikipedia article, the latter has an 'edit'
        tab at the top, allowing progressive improvement in content,
        viewpoint and citation from those with interest and capability.

        While the Britannica article will remain static, unchanged for the
        foreseeable future and therefore unable to benefit from more
        comprehensive treatment, wider discussion and updated scholarship,
        the Wikipedia article on Gilgamesh can be improved on a daily,
        hourly, even minute by minute basis.

        It seems that some in the community could be in danger of missing the
        entire point to Wikipedia and similar projects: you _can_ and _are_
        encouraged to improve it. What's more: your contributions are
        immediately visible. Even better: kudos will accrue to those
        registered to the Wikipedia project by virtue of their contributions
        listed in the article History.

        Let me pose a new challenge then, as a demonstration and as an
        experiment of what is possible: Let those who are interested amongst
        us from the list endeavour to improve the Gilgamesh article over the
        next few weeks to the point where it can be nominated and accepted as
        a Wikipedia Featured Article.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh - let's get started!

        -----------------------

        Paul James Cowie
        BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

        London, England and Sydney, Australia

        Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
        Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel

        PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
        University, Sydney, Australia

        On 4 Apr 2006, at 21:35, Marc Cooper wrote:

        > I have posted a file containing the Britanica Online article on
        > Gilgamesh and the Wikipedia article on Gligamesh. You can access it at
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/files/



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Paul James Cowie
        Already looking better! It s approaching 11pm here and I need to hit the hay in order to write meaningfully on the New Kingdom Egyptian Empire in the Levant
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 4, 2006
          Already looking better! It's approaching 11pm here and I need to hit
          the hay in order to write meaningfully on the New Kingdom Egyptian
          Empire in the Levant come the dawn, and yet.... In 20 minutes I have
          made the following changes to the Wikipedia article on Gilgamesh:

          - removed the the large slab of material regarding "Gilgamesh in
          popular culture" - interesting, but extraneous to the article's
          purpose - to its own separate article

          - greatly expanded the Bibliography

          - greatly expanded the External links

          - nominated "Gilgamesh" as a candidate for the Wikipedia Article
          Improvement Drive

          Improvements to the primary content of the article shall have to
          await the morning... Unless, of course, some other scholar or
          interested person would like to grasp the baton? (Perhaps one of my
          North American colleagues? - it's still early evening across the
          Atlantic from where I sit!)

          I hope this demonstrates, however, how little time and effort are
          actually needed to make a real, positive and instantaneous difference
          for the increasing number of Wikipedia users worldwide...

          'Night all,

          -----------------------

          Paul James Cowie
          BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

          London, England and Sydney, Australia

          Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
          Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel

          PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
          University, Sydney, Australia

          On 4 Apr 2006, at 22:28, Paul James Cowie wrote:

          > One difference can be immediately identified between the Gilgamesh
          > articles in Britannica Online and Wikipedia:
          >
          > While the Britannica article has clearly benefited from scholarly
          > input at some stage in the past and is therefore _presently_ somewhat
          > more reliable than the Wikipedia article, the latter has an 'edit'
          > tab at the top, allowing progressive improvement in content,
          > viewpoint and citation from those with interest and capability.
          >
          > While the Britannica article will remain static, unchanged for the
          > foreseeable future and therefore unable to benefit from more
          > comprehensive treatment, wider discussion and updated scholarship,
          > the Wikipedia article on Gilgamesh can be improved on a daily,
          > hourly, even minute by minute basis.
          >
          > It seems that some in the community could be in danger of missing the
          > entire point to Wikipedia and similar projects: you _can_ and _are_
          > encouraged to improve it. What's more: your contributions are
          > immediately visible. Even better: kudos will accrue to those
          > registered to the Wikipedia project by virtue of their contributions
          > listed in the article History.
          >
          > Let me pose a new challenge then, as a demonstration and as an
          > experiment of what is possible: Let those who are interested amongst
          > us from the list endeavour to improve the Gilgamesh article over the
          > next few weeks to the point where it can be nominated and accepted as
          > a Wikipedia Featured Article.
          >
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh - let's get started!
          >
          > -----------------------
          >
          > Paul James Cowie
          > BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato
          >
          > London, England and Sydney, Australia
          >
          > Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
          > Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel
          >
          > PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology,
          > Macquarie
          > University, Sydney, Australia
          >
          > On 4 Apr 2006, at 21:35, Marc Cooper wrote:
          >
          > > I have posted a file containing the Britanica Online article on
          > > Gilgamesh and the Wikipedia article on Gligamesh. You can access
          > it at
          > >
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/files/
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > SPONSORED LINKS
          > Near Columbia university University of helsinki
          >
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          > Visit your group "ANE-2" on the web.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • G.M. Grena
          ... Overall, the Britannica (check Subject spelling) content is better; however, it seems unscholarly for them to say Utnapishtim, the survivor of the
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 4, 2006
            > The two articles differ in viewpoint.
            > Anyone care to comment on the differences?
            > Marc Cooper

            Overall, the Britannica (check Subject spelling) content is better;
            however, it seems unscholarly for them to say "Utnapishtim, the
            survivor of the Babylonian Flood," when the cuneiform text makes no
            such exclusion (i.e., "Babylonian" vs. "the land" & "the whole of
            mankind"; reference the ANE-2 "Global Flood" thread initiated by
            Dorothy Anderson a few weeks ago). It's very misleading. An attorney
            would object to this as "leading the witness", or in this case,
            misleading the readers.

            George Michael Grena, II
            Redondo Beach CA
          • G.M. Grena
            ... Hey, your comparison wasn t accurate. You quoted the Wikipedia entry on Gilgamesh, but casual readers might miss the fact that the first sentence contains
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 4, 2006
              > I have posted a file containing the Britanica Online article on
              > Gilgamesh and the Wikipedia article on Gligamesh.
              > Marc Cooper

              Hey, your comparison wasn't accurate. You quoted the Wikipedia entry
              on Gilgamesh, but casual readers might miss the fact that the first
              sentence contains a wiki-link to a more detailed article on the Epic
              itself:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

              And that page provides a link to an English translation of all 11
              tablets:

              http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Epic_of_Gilgamesh

              Now compare that content to Britannica's.

              George Michael Grena, II
              Redondo Beach, CA
            • Marc Cooper
              George, you re right, casual readers might miss the link to the entry on the Epic. This is part of the problem, the plan of Wikipedia presumes that readers
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 5, 2006
                George, you're right, casual readers might miss the link to the entry
                on the Epic. This is part of the problem, the plan of Wikipedia
                presumes that readers will click many links. Most readers will not do
                that, and that might be a good thing.

                Look at the entry again. It is confused. Is it about the Epic or is it
                about the historical Gilgamesh? Why is there so much overlap with the
                article on the Epic? It is nice to mention the Tummal inscription but
                the entry doesn't quite get it right. Then as an afterthought we learn
                of the supposed tomb of Gilgamesh, as if there is a clear connection
                between the structure at Uruk and the historical Gilgmaesh.

                The problem with the Wiki entry is that it is a set of accretions
                without any plan. Look at the Britannica article again. Note how it
                provides a unified perspective on the Epic giving the historical
                Gilgamesh as much emphasis as it probably deserves at the introductory
                level. Also note how the Britannica article neatly sidesteps some of
                the scholarly issues surrounding the Epic. We learn that Enkidu
                was "initiated" into society. This is good use of the passive so as to
                avoid dealing with Shamhat. Now look at the Wiki article on Shamhat.
                Wikipedia tells readers that the entry is not properly written. It does
                not tell readers that the entry is worthless.

                Paul could fix it and the rest of the entries linked to Gilgamesh, but
                he will have to review the articles' content regularly to keep them
                from being ruined by well-meaning wikipedists (Is that a word?).

                Marc Cooper
                Missouri State University


                --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "G.M. Grena" wrote:

                > Hey, your comparison wasn't accurate. You quoted the Wikipedia entry
                > on Gilgamesh, but casual readers might miss the fact that the first
                > sentence contains a wiki-link to a more detailed article on the Epic
                >
                > George Michael Grena, II
                > Redondo Beach, CA
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.