Clark, list, Clark wrote:
For the record I wouldn’t trust Britannica on technical topics either. I'm not sure what you mean by 'trust' here. An encyclopedia is meant principally as a first or preliminary source and, as John Collier suggested, students--and, indeed, all researchers--should consult multiple sources, *perhaps* including encyclopedias.. Indeed, encyclopedia articles are characteristically brief enough that one might read Wikipedia's, Britannica's, and perhaps a few other 'basic' sources before plunging into deeper research. Clark also wrote: I think the Britannica/Wikipedia comparison is a bit problematic though. On more general topics such as traditional encyclopedias cover I’m sure Wikipedia is typically fine. It’s the more narrow topics where problems tend to pop up. I would tend to see it in just the opposite way. John Collier wrote: One of our brightest students, and my TA for a couple of years, was a big contributor of articles and editor for Wikipedia. He took it very seriously. I know a number of Wikipedia contributors who take "it very seriously," and are quick to correct errors when they appear. And this seems especially the caseas concerns more 'narrow' topics. But John also wrote re Wikipedia There are rules about citing sources (failures to do this are typically noted). There is supposed to be no creative writing, just reporting wahat is said in identifiable sources. Both of these rules are often violated. I'm not sure just how frequently these rules are broken, but in my experience (and, in particular, I recall a mini-inquiry several of my undergraduate critical thinking classes undertook on the topic), I saw that there was a very strong desire among the most serious contributors to correct errors, including those of citation. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I agree with Edwina. There have now been a number of studies comparing > Wikipedia and Britannica, such as this published in *Nature * > https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ > showing that they are about equal in accuracy. > > > For the record I wouldn’t trust Britannica on technical topics either. > > I think the Britannica/Wikipedia comparison is a bit problematic though. > On more general topics such as traditional encyclopedias cover I’m sure > Wikipedia is typically fine. It’s the more narrow topics where problems > tend to pop up. > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
