There are many ways to approach this comparison. I could, of course, show you the endless corrections of Wikipedia that are yet to be found in Encyclopedia Britannica. Even if Britannica published new Encyclopedias everyday, and hired teams of developers to keep their online encyclopedia up to date, they could never keep as cutting edge and as current as Wikipedia. By writing this entry and elegantly integrating links from Wikipedia - I have demonstrated Wikipedia's strength as a web tool. Wikipedia is a masterful demonstration of the capabilities of new Internet generations - facilitating the ever increasing speed at which information can be shared and merged between users for the creation of even more involved collaboration and information technologies.
It is of course true that Britannica and Wikipedia have similarities. They both definitely have errors and other problems, but many times for different reasons. While Wikipedia often has a "wisdom of the mob," Britannica is commonly shown to be outdated or lacking in detail. In many cases, the wisdom of the masses is better than the wisdom of the wisdom of the “experts” because more controversy is included, but this isn't always the case. Communities of Wikipedian's even demonstrate self-censorship in many cases by excluding unpopular information. The global warming page on Wikipedia shows very little controversy, but it includes significantly more references and material (not to mention there is a specific Wikipedia page for global warming controversy) than Britannica's global warming page. Even topics like Columbus's discovery of America which still challenge popular opinion are subject to censorship – only recently has anything about Christopher Columbus's affinity for slavery been mentioned on his Wikipedia page, but Britannica's Encyclopedia doesn't mention this at all.
After all of the fuss in academics about copying from Wikipedia - when all that is really needed is to enforce Wikipedia's own rules of information and citation usage. (Anything is potentially inaccurate when you copy or skip over the original sources.) The culture of information accuracy is helped not hurt by the wikipedian who is humorously portrayed by as protester in my favorite cartoon xkcd. Wikipedia is both a static and dynamic source which can itself cite Britannica, and for this reason sources like Britannica are certainly still useful. As Jimmy Wales has spoken about himself: Wikipedia has the technology to document culture in a way that can give the people of the future a realistic view of what it was like to live in our culture today.
It is of course true that Britannica and Wikipedia have similarities. They both definitely have errors and other problems, but many times for different reasons. While Wikipedia often has a "wisdom of the mob," Britannica is commonly shown to be outdated or lacking in detail. In many cases, the wisdom of the masses is better than the wisdom of the wisdom of the “experts” because more controversy is included, but this isn't always the case. Communities of Wikipedian's even demonstrate self-censorship in many cases by excluding unpopular information. The global warming page on Wikipedia shows very little controversy, but it includes significantly more references and material (not to mention there is a specific Wikipedia page for global warming controversy) than Britannica's global warming page. Even topics like Columbus's discovery of America which still challenge popular opinion are subject to censorship – only recently has anything about Christopher Columbus's affinity for slavery been mentioned on his Wikipedia page, but Britannica's Encyclopedia doesn't mention this at all.
After all of the fuss in academics about copying from Wikipedia - when all that is really needed is to enforce Wikipedia's own rules of information and citation usage. (Anything is potentially inaccurate when you copy or skip over the original sources.) The culture of information accuracy is helped not hurt by the wikipedian who is humorously portrayed by as protester in my favorite cartoon xkcd. Wikipedia is both a static and dynamic source which can itself cite Britannica, and for this reason sources like Britannica are certainly still useful. As Jimmy Wales has spoken about himself: Wikipedia has the technology to document culture in a way that can give the people of the future a realistic view of what it was like to live in our culture today.
No comments:
Post a Comment