Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia trumps Britannica

[Alan Liefting]

Implementing  flagged revisions to get rid of the vandalism would make 
it an even better resouce!


Alan Liefting


Keith Old wrote:
> Folks,
>
> According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
> researchers than Britannica.
>
>   


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia trumps Britannica

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Keith Old  wrote:
> Folks,
>
> According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
> researchers than Britannica.
>
> http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia
>
> 

Thanks for the link to this story.

One bit stood out:

"Because Wikipedia has a policy of linking to reliable sources it
turned out to be a wonderful starting point for research."

That sums up the usefulness of Wikipedia where sources are provided.

Of course, you still need to check those sources, and unsourced
material is a less helpful starting point than sourced material, but
all this is key to how to use Wikipedia.

The ending quote sums it up nicely as well:

"I never relied on Wikipedia as the sole source of information, but it
was always a marvellous spring board to get me started."

Perfect summary.

Source-aggregator, sometimes with well-written text and nice images as well.

Though you have to be wary in some areas of editorialising and
source-selection issues.

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia trumps Britannica

[AGK]

> What I discovered was that Wikipedia trumps Britanncia all the time because
> its articles are in more depth and provide better references. And the site
> design means that Wikipedia is easily navigable and focuses on the content,
> whereas Britannica’s site assaults the eyes with distractions.

Not to mention that Wikipedia is fully free.

> And more often than not I was finding original source material via
> Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia has a
> policy of
> linking to reliable sources it turned out to be a wonderful starting point
> for research.

> After a few weeks I canceled my Britannica subscription and worked solely
> with Wikipedia as a starting point for research. I never relied on Wikipedia
> as the sole source of information, but it was always a marvelous spring
> board to get me started.

Well, that's exactly where Wikipedia today fits into the research
dimension. It's a starting point; a springboard to further research
material.

> So Wikipedia’s supposed ‘unreliability’ actually plays to enhance its
> reliability and usefulness because it’s forced to continuously declare where
> a particular fact was found. At the same time Britannica is a walled garden
> of truth.

That walled garden seems in many cases to actually be less reliable
than Wikipedia. A proper study into the reliability of Britanica
relative to Wikipedia hasn't been done in a while, though:
http://bit.ly/a2WSI2.

Anthony

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia trumps Britannica

[Charles Matthews]

Keith Old wrote:
> Folks,
>
> According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
> researchers than Britannica.
>
> http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia
>
>   

> Initially, I’d find myself double-checking facts on Wikipedia by looking in
> Britannica. I’d read that
> Boltzmann died
> on September 5, 1906 on Wikipedia and jump to Britannica to check the
> date
> .
>
> After weeks of doing this I realized that Britannica wasn’t helping. Any
> errors I found on Wikipedia were because I was reading original source
> material (see for example this
> correction
> ).
>
>   
Yes, this is an interesting testimonial. For me the turning point was 
the realisation (this was in relation to history) that I was finding 
errors in academic writing, in compiling and using Wikipedia, about as 
often as finding errors in Wikipedia itself. Though that depends a bit 
where you look on the site.

Charles


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia trumps Britannica

[Keith Old]

Folks,

According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
researchers than Britannica.

http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia

While
writing The Geek Atlas I used both Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia for
research. It quickly became obvious that Wikipedia trumps Britannica.

...
While researching the history of places appearing in my book, The Geek
Atlas,
I used a lot of different resources.

...

But the most useful resource was Wikipedia .

At the start of writing the book I bought myself a subscription toEncyclopedia
Britannica  because I was worried that Wikipedia
might be inaccurate.

What I discovered was that Wikipedia trumps Britanncia all the time because
its articles are in more depth and provide better references. And the site
design means that Wikipedia is easily navigable and focuses on the content,
whereas Britannica’s site assaults the eyes with distractions.

Initially, I’d find myself double-checking facts on Wikipedia by looking in
Britannica. I’d read that
Boltzmann died
on September 5, 1906 on Wikipedia and jump to Britannica to check the
date
.

After weeks of doing this I realized that Britannica wasn’t helping. Any
errors I found on Wikipedia were because I was reading original source
material (see for example this
correction
).

And more often than not I was finding original source material via
Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia has a
policy of
linking to reliable sources it turned out to be a wonderful starting point
for research.

Britannica, on the other hand, appears to view its role as being the
reliable source. Because it is edited and managed, part of its brand is
reliability. This leads to a sort of self-sufficiency which contrasts with
Wikipedia’s need to prove its reliability constantly.

The beauty of being forced to prove reliability is the wealth of third-party
links provided by Wikipedia. For example, when reading about the Miller-Urey
Experiment  you’ll
find a link to Miller’s 1953
paper describing
the experiment.

If you search for “Miller Urey Experiment” on Britannica the best you’ll
find is a short (248 words) article about Stanley Miller that mentions the
experiment. There are no links to external web sites concerning the
experiment, and no references to material such as academic papers.

So Wikipedia’s supposed ‘unreliability’ actually plays to enhance its
reliability and usefulness because it’s forced to continuously declare where
a particular fact was found. At the same time Britannica is a walled garden
of truth.

After a few weeks I canceled my Britannica subscription and worked solely
with Wikipedia as a starting point for research. I never relied on Wikipedia
as the sole source of information, but it was always a marvelous spring
board to get me started.

The richness of Wikipedia trumped the hallowed reliability of Britannica.
-- 
Keith Old
62050121 (w)
62825360 (h)
0429478376 (m)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l