Wiki how many more times

Not even the online Britannica , which is still kicking, but the print version, which ceased publication in If you encountered the words Encyclopedia Britannica recently, they were likely in a discussion about Wikipedia. But when did you last see a physical copy of these books? After months of reading about Wikipedia, which meant reading about Britannica , I finally saw the paper encyclopedia in person.

It was on the sidewalk, being thrown away. The 24 burgundy-bound volumes had been stacked with care, looking regal before their garbage-truck funeral. Today, they are so unsalable that thrift stores refuse them as donations. Wikipedia and Britannica do, at least, share a certain lineage. The idea of building a complete compendium of human knowledge has existed for centuries, and there was always talk of finding some better substrate than paper: H.

But for most people who were alive in the earliest days of the internet, an encyclopedia was a book, plain and simple. Back then, it made sense to pit Wikipedia and Britannica against each other. It made sense to highlight Britannica 's strengths—its rigorous editing and fact-checking procedures; its roster of illustrious contributors, including three US presidents and a host of Nobel laureates, Academy Award winners, novelists, and inventors—and to question whether amateurs on the internet could create a product even half as good.

Wikipedia was an unknown quantity; the name for what it did, crowdsourcing, didn't even exist until , when two WIRED editors coined the word. That same year, the journal Nature released the first major head-to-head comparison study.

It revealed that, for articles on science, at least, the two resources were nearly comparable: Britannica averaged three minor mistakes per entry, while Wikipedia averaged four. The more revisions a Wikipedia article had, the more neutral it became. But some important differences don't readily show up in quantitative, side-by-side comparisons. For instance, there's the fact that people tend to read Wikipedia daily, whereas Britannica had the quality of fine china, as much a display object as a reference work.

The edition I encountered by the roadside was in suspiciously good shape. Although the covers were a little wilted, the spines were uncracked and the pages immaculate—telltale signs of 50 years of infrequent use. And as I learned when I retrieved as many volumes as I could carry home, the contents are an antidote for anyone waxing nostalgic. I found the articles in my '65 Britannica mostly high quality and high minded, but the tone of breezy acumen could become imprecise. You can pretty much forget about television.

Lord Byron, meanwhile, commands four whole pages. This conservative tendency wasn't limited to Britannica. Growing up, I remember reading the entry on dating in a hand-me-down World Book and being baffled by its emphasis on sharing milkshakes. The worthies who wrote these entries, moreover, didn't come cheap. According to an article in The Atlantic from , Britannica contributors earned 10 cents per word, on average—about 50 cents in today's money.

Sometimes they got a full encyclopedia set as a bonus. They apparently didn't show much gratitude for this compensation; the editors complained of missed deadlines, petulant behavior, lazy mistakes, and outright bias. There was another seldom remembered limitation to these gospel tomes: They were, in a way, shrinking. The total length of paper encyclopedias remained relatively finite, but the number of facts in the universe kept growing, leading to attrition and abbreviation.

It was a zero-sum game in which adding new articles meant deleting or curtailing incumbent information. Even the most noteworthy were not immune; between and , Bach's Britannica entry shrank by two pages. By the time the internet came into being, a limitless encyclopedia was not just a natural idea but an obvious one. Yet there was still a sense—even among the pioneers of the web—that, although the substrate was new, the top-down, expert-driven Britannica model should remain in place.

In , 10 months before Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger cofounded Wikipedia, the pair started a site called Nupedia, planning to source articles from noted scholars and put them through seven rounds of editorial oversight. But the site never got off the ground; after a year, there were fewer than two dozen entries. They assumed nothing good would come of it, but within a year Wikipedia had 20, articles. By the time Nupedia's servers went down a year later, the original site had become a husk, and the seed it carried had grown beyond any expectation.

The same year, another influential Wikipedia editor, Eugene Izhikevich, launched Scholarpedia, an invitation-only, peer-reviewed online encyclopedia with a focus on the sciences. Citizendium struggled to attract both funding and contributors and is now moribund; Scholarpedia, which started out with less lofty ambitions, has fewer than 2, articles. But more notable was why these sites languished. They came up against a simple and apparently insoluble problem, the same one that Nupedia encountered and Wikipedia surmounted: Most experts do not want to contribute to a free online encyclopedia.

This barrier to entry exists even in places where there are many experts and large volumes of material to draw from. Napoleon Bonaparte, for instance, is the subject of tens of thousands of books. There are probably more dedicated historians of the Corsican general than of almost any other historical figure, but so far these scholars, even the retired or especially enthusiastic ones, have been disinclined to share their bounty.

Citizendium's entry on Napoleon, around 5, words long and unedited for the past six years, is missing events as major as the decisive Battle of Borodino, which claimed 70, casualties, and the succession of Napoleon II. By contrast, Wikipedia's article on Napoleon sits at around 18, words long and runs to more than sources. The Wikipedia replacement products revealed another problem with the top-down model: With so few contributors, coverage was spotty and gaps were hard to fill.

Cookie Settings. Welcome to wikiHow, the most trusted how-to site on the internet. What will you learn on wikiHow today? Expert Co-Authored Articles Expert. Trending How-To Articles. Learn to protect yourself and fight online misinformation. We worked with our friends at the United Nations Verified Initiative to provide you proven tips to help you tell fact from fiction in online media.

Learn more. Featured How-To Articles. Invalid Email Sign me up! Like other songs on the album, Page started to work on it while he was a member of The Yardbirds. How many more times, treat me the way you wanna do How many more times, treat me the way you wanna do When I give you all my love Please, please be true I'll give you all I've got to give, rings, pearls, and all I'll give you all I've got to give rings, pearls, and all I've got to get you together baby I'm sure, sure you're gonna crawl Oh, when's the last time I done asked you?

I was a young man, I couldn't resist Started thinkin' it over, just what I had missed Got me a girl and I kissed her and then and then Whoops, oh, Lord, well I did it again Now I've got ten children of my own I got another child on the way that makes eleven But I'm in constant heaven I know it's all right in my mind 'Cause I got a little school girl and she's all mine I can't get through to her 'cause it doesn't permit But I'm gonna give her everything I've got to give Oh, Rosie, oh, girl, oh, Rosie, oh yeah Steal away now, steal away Steal away, baby, steal away Little Robert Anthony wants to come and play Why don't you come for me, baby?

Steal away, alright, alright Well, they call me the hunter, that's my name Call me the hunter, that's how I got my fame Ain't no need to hide, ain't no need to run 'Cause I've got you in the sights of my gun How many more times, barrel house all night long How many more times, barrel house all night long Well I've got to get to you, baby Oh, please come home Why don't you listen to me, babe?

Why don't you please come home? Led Zeppelin Wiki Explore.