Hey fellow beer lovers!

I am writing this message to make you aware of a new Internet project called
"Wikibraeu"; it can be found at http://wikibraeu.sciam.de.

Anyone who has recently browsed the web is likely to have come across
"Wikipedia", an online encyclopedia that can be edited and extended by any
Internet user. This "decentralized editorship" has as a consequence an
up-to-dateness reached by no printed lexicon.

On the other side, which collector or beer lover hasn't had the following
problem yet? -- You are looking for some bit of information about some
particular brewery (address, website or pictures of labels etc.), but all
the information is spread over several websites, which are in the worst
case not even up-to-date. The idea behind Wikibraeu is to solve this
problem with Wikipedia's philosophy:

Wikibraeu is a brewery lexicon that can be edited and extended by any
Internet user. The goal is to have about every brewery in the world an
article containing up-to-date information like the address, the website,
pictures of collectors' material, etc. Both collectors (looking for
addresses of breweries and pictures of their labels, coasters, etc.) and
beer lovers will benefit from such a project.

Wikibraeu went online just these days, so the lexicon is still near to
empty. If you want to help Wikibraeu "learn to walk", I kindly ask you to
do one or more of the following:

* Start one ore more articles. (They needn't be long, essential information
like the brewery's address suffices.)
* If you maintain a website, please set up a link from there to "Wikibraeu -
The brewery lexicon by you for you"; the URL is http://wikibraeu.sciam.de
* Forward this email to people who might be interested.

Should you find some time, please help with this interesting project! This
is the only way it will be able to live and grow!

Thanks and all the best
Robert West

Robert West wrote:


Anyone who has recently browsed the web is likely to have come across
"Wikipedia", an online encyclopedia that can be edited and extended by any
Internet user. This "decentralized editorship" has as a consequence an
up-to-dateness reached by no printed lexicon.

I don't quite understand the concept of an "encyclopedia that can be
edited ..by (anyone)". One of the first times I'd come across
Wikipedia, was actually a link I found here about Schaefer beer. Here's
the first part of the entry (the rest is about Schaefer in Puerto Rico &
its ad campaigns):

"Schaefer Beer is a brand of beer from the United States. Schaefer beer
traces its beginnings back to 1848, when the Engels and Schaefer Brewing
Company was opened in Cedarburg, Wisconsin."

Wha? The famous Schaefer beer from the F & M Schaefer Brewing Company
of Brooklyn, NY, founded in 1842, had no connection with the above (but
similarly) named Wisconsin brewer.

"Schaefer was, at one point during the first half of the 20th century,
the world's best selling beer. By the 1970s, however, it had ceded that
spot to Budweiser."

Schaefer was NEVER the "best selling beer in the world". In the US,
Anheuser-Busch has been the largest brewer since Prohibition (save two
years during the 1950's when, due to a strike, Schlitz outsold them).
When Schaefer was in the "1 Million Barrel" group of brewers in the late
1930's, it was joined in that group with two other NYC metro area
breweries, Ruppert and Ballantine (along with A-B, Schlitz and Pabst).

Now, obviously, sales of individual BRANDS (as opposed to totals from a
brewer) are hard to track down, but it seems unlikely that Schaefer beer
EVER outsold Budweiser. In the pre-Prohibition era, Schaefer wasn't
even a particularly large NYC area brewer- outsold by Ehret, Ballantine,
B&S, Doelger, Ruppert & Everard (a lot of "who's?" in that list).
In 1961, A-B sold 9 Million barrels of beer compared to Schaefer's 3.5
Million. By the end of the decade, it' was 18.7 A-B vs. 5.4 Schaefer.

Now, Schaefer WAS once the predominate beer in NYC but, as sales slide
they weren't intially hurt since they distributed Bud in NYC (or so the
legend goes...).

wrote:

I don't quite understand the concept of an "encyclopedia that can be
edited ..by (anyone)".

Apparently not...

One of the first times I'd come across
Wikipedia, was actually a link I found here about Schaefer beer. Here's
the first part of the entry (the rest is about Schaefer in Puerto Rico &
its ad campaigns):

"Schaefer Beer is a brand of beer from the United States... SNIP

Wha? The famous Schaefer beer from the F & M Schaefer Brewing Company
of Brooklyn, NY, founded in 1842, had no connection with the above (but
similarly) named Wisconsin brewer... SNIP

Schaefer was NEVER the "best selling beer in the world"... SNIP

Very impressive, but why are you telling us all this? If you
know so much and care so passionately about Schaefer, go
back to Wikipedia and correct the bloody entry.

Now do you understand the concept?

Very impressive, but why are you telling us all this? If you
know so much and care so passionately about Schaefer, go
back to Wikipedia and correct the bloody entry.

or to http://wikibraeu.sciam.de and add it...

Jon Binkley wrote:
wrote:


I don't quite understand the concept of an "encyclopedia that can be
edited ..by (anyone)".


Apparently not...

OK, how's this: "I don't understand the concept of anyone TRUSTING a
website that can be "edited" by anyone, with no verification, no cites,
no footnoting, no sources.

Very impressive, but why are you telling us all this?

Uh, 'cause this is a beer newsgroup (don't think brewery history is OT)
and it was a response to a proposed Wikibraeu site. Wasn't trying to
"impress" anyone (to me, it was equivelent to reading the definition of
a word out of a dictionary).

If you
know so much and care so passionately about Schaefer,

I don't really know or care much about Schaefer (certainly never found
anything in their beers to be passionate about)- but I am interested in
accuracy and facts. It took me about 60 seconds to find the correct
information on Schaefer in my various beer books and articles I've
collected over the years. I was only using the Schaefer entry as an
example of why I think the concept of "anyone" being able to edit an
"encyclopedia" is defective. I'm sure there are tons of other entries
were people who know the subject can pick it apart. As such, I'd be
suspicious of any article.

go
back to Wikipedia and correct the bloody entry.

Why? So some one else can "re-edit" it based on their prejudices and
misinformation? Seems to me with a real "editor", whose job it is to
fact-check (after all, I could have made up all those "facts" I cited
without credit) is necessary for an encyclopedia to be any good.

Now do you understand the concept?

Oh, I understand it- just think it's worthless for research.

In article , wrote:
Jon Binkley wrote:
wrote:
I don't quite understand the concept of an "encyclopedia that can be
edited ..by (anyone)".

Apparently not...

OK, how's this: "I don't understand the concept of anyone TRUSTING a
website that can be "edited" by anyone, with no verification, no cites,
no footnoting, no sources.

You and me both. The wiki concept can work when dealing
with opinions, or when used by a subset of people who have
a focussed interest and who use the thing properly. But
it's not much better than relying on something like USENET
for any given general topic. Lots of chaff to serach through
for the wheat.

Why? So some one else can "re-edit" it based on their prejudices and
misinformation? Seems to me with a real "editor", whose job it is to
fact-check (after all, I could have made up all those "facts" I cited
without credit) is necessary for an encyclopedia to be any good.

Exactly.
--
Joel Plutchak "If you got the grits, serve 'em!" - Stanley Crouch
plutchak at [...]

wrote:

OK, how's this: "I don't understand the concept of anyone TRUSTING a
website that can be "edited" by anyone, with no verification, no cites,
no footnoting, no sources.

Depends on how deep a level of trust you demand. In practice,
Wikipedia turns out to be about as trustworthy as the Encyclopedia
Britannica (as reported in Nature late last year). If it was something
I was staking my career or reputation on, I certainly wouldn't take
either Wikipedia or Britannica (or the New York Times, or Fox News,
or even rec.food.drink.beer!) as the final authority. But for casual
interest, it's turns out to be as good a quick source as just about
anything else.

As to citing, footnoting, and sourcing, I've seen plenty of each in
Wikipedia (replacing "footnoting" with "hyperlinking"). It really
depends
on the level of activity and interest for a given article. You
obviously
stumbled on one with low activity and interest, and as is the case
with many such articles, the information was in need of completion
and/or correction. These deficient articles are usually pretty easy
to spot, and are often even flagged as being in need of help.

I was only using the Schaefer entry as an
example of why I think the concept of "anyone" being able to edit an
"encyclopedia" is defective. I'm sure there are tons of other entries
were people who know the subject can pick it apart. As such, I'd be
suspicious of any article.

A certain level of skepticism is certainly healthy when applied to
Wikipedia (and every other information medium) but in practice
it works surprisingly well.