Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica »
Posted by: nowsourcing 1 year, 1 month agoReview of how Wikipedia has recently made corrections to the Encyclopedia Britannica, and how The Wisdom of Crowds truly makes Wikipedia a credible resource. Also, what exactly is Wikipedia - a search engine, social news like Netscape, or what?
Read Full Story at nowsourcing.wordpress.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 32
-
0%
engineer1 year, 1 month ago
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit a page with no check out of credentials. Thus I would trust Encyclopedia Britannica more.
Reply-
-
0%
Blackadder19641 year, 1 month ago
There have been several cases recently where its was found so called wiki experts were phonys the one I remember was a "prof of theology" who turned out to be a 17 year old high school student. While an open system sounds great "i like wiki" I wouldn't trust wiki there is no chance of keeping up or checking the many thousands of new entrys and edits that are being made each day.
Reply
-
-
0%
CrazyRay1 year, 1 month ago
Go edit a page with false information and see just how fast it's reverted, you'll see that "check and balance system" firsthand
Reply -
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 1 month ago
LOL.....I've seen many entries that I know were incorrect and submitted corrections to them.....they do need a lot of help with the phrasing and the meaning of a lot of the terminology. That is a problem because a lot words and phrases mean different things to speakers of English from different countries and even different states....that also is true for spelling.
Also...a lot of entries are heavily influenced by the political, religious, national and other ideologies and views of the people who make the posts and the editors.
Reply
-
-
0%
Aurinkohirvi1 year, 1 month ago
Wikipedia is more like an Open Source program. It can be edited by lot's of people, but it can also be verified by lot's of people, and make the corrections. While as EB articles are written by a person, or a group of persons, with their own angle. Therefore I trust more on Wikipedia, than EB.
I've studied Finland's prehistory for 20 years. And when I got to read Encyclopedia Britannica On-line's article on Finland's history, I was...well, shocked is the word. It was outdated badly (seemed over a decade old) and with very strange views that the great majority of Finnish scholars would definately not support. And during the last two decades everything has completely changed in what we know about our past!
What's more, when I read the part of modern history, it was written with a British angle.
I haven't studied EB's other articles, but the article I read was outdated, strange, and in parts biased. Definately one shouldn't trust it.
Reply
-
-
0%
nowsourcing1 year, 1 month ago
yes, those old ones might be worth something one day - as a collectible :)
Wikipedia is a great source for current events as well and update regularly. As mentioned in the article, you can't just post and link whatever you want and get away with it.
Reply -
-
-
0%
nowsourcing1 year, 1 month ago
Are you really saying that when you are looking for information, you go to Britannica and not Wikipedia?
Reply
-
-
0%
BronxBomber1 year, 1 month ago
Out of the two, Britannica is indeed more reliable. So I have to go with engineer there.
Reply -
0%
1-2-Oscar1 year, 1 month ago
I issue guidelines to each of my classes on how I expect research papers to be done. Everyone must footnote their work diligently, regardless of the nature of their resources. Since the sorry incident in which a wikipedia article accused James M. Schlesinger of complicity in the murder of his close friend John F. Kennedy, I have forbidden my students to use wikipedia as a resource in an academic paper. There are simply too many errors and outright falsehoods in their articles, and no responsible oversight.
Further, I tell them how my daughter, an attorney, volunteers at her old high school to help with the debate team, moot court, and the theater. She recently met a HS junior whose proudest achievement was the fact that he had written four wikipedia articles. So I ask them, "Do you think it appropriate that college students rely on a high school junior for their information?"
Reply -
-
0%
Juditt1 year, 1 month ago
I voted up the comment above -although I don't agree with it philosophically- because it describes a reality that does exist.
I have high hopes for the concept of The Wisdom of Crowds as the original article mentions because it seems to reflect for me what the U.S. as a republic with our democratic value system. As national borders become more obsolete with the growth of international trade and instantaneous communication, the power of the individual within a community is becoming the new normal. Very "tribal" somehow!!
Reply -
0%
icelander1 year, 1 month ago
"Simply not the place a scholar turns for verifiable, credible information."
True, but what about people who aren't scholars? Just about any news story or obscure information is available on wikipedia. When I want to get a quick overview about something obscure, like a programming concept, a mathematical theory, a TV show, or some bit of pseudoscience, I turn to Wikipedia first because I know no other place will have information presented in a concise manner.
If you're a "scholar," it's not as good as other resources, but for the vast, vast majority of people it's perfectly fine to look something up to get a better understanding of the world.
Besides, if you don't like it you can always start your own wiki that validates people's qualifications before letting them edit it.
Reply
-
-
0%
subirkrdatta1 year, 1 month ago
I think Wikepedia will project a clear picture of a topic inprogress.
Reply -
-
0%
alakazam1 year, 1 month ago
I try to only use Wikipedia as a generic reference. As wickli says, it is good as a search engine.
I also find it useful for giving a link to obscure terminology or historical matters and to amplified outlines of ideologies which may lie outside the "norm".
I would certainly not rely solely on it as a credible reference to resolve a matter which is under dispute.
Reply -
0%
getanapple1 year, 1 month ago
Wikipedia is like asking a friend, you should never take all the information at face value, So many people are gaming it for links and reference.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
Mutainia9 months, 1 week ago
Love the Wiki, but, I'm not chucking my family's 20 year old Britannica collection.
Reply
Submitted By:
nowsourcing
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
