Wikipedia (Source:Google)
Britannica(Source:Google) Goal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another spectacular goal from marvellous player David Villa have won Spain their match Vs Russia in Euro 2008, in contrast, this stiff and competitive football scenario is well portrayed in the ‘rivalry’ between Wikipedia Vs Britannica. Which of these two will finally won the ‘match of the minds and hearts’ of their audience? But before that, most essentially, what are Wikipedia and Brittanica?
Generally, Wikipedia is a FREE online encyclopedia whereby Wiki means ‘fast’ in Hawaiian word (What-is-what, 2008). In addition, it has always been the first stuff that comes to mind while searching for information. Furthermore, a person with an online connection could readily edit the information in Wikipedia as it is termed as “sum of public human knowledge” (What-is-what, 2008). In contrast, Britannica is an encyclopedia existing in both print and online that have been getting rare reviews regarding their validity of their information setting the path of reliable example (Terdiman, 2005). However, there is a cost incurred in order to get the information from this encyclopedia.
Wikipedia has always being criticised of portraying inaccurate and invalid results as anyone are able to edit the piece of data, as a result, could we really trust Wikipedia? According to Bosworth (2004), Wikipedia is bias and the coverage is not that comprehensive as some information regarding Putlizer prize winner James Mcperson are not published even thought he had an article regarding him. In addition, only Stephen Ambrose case is discussed in “Historians on the hot seat” while there are sixteen recent cases.
A study by Nature has illustrated that Britannica makes 2.92 mistakes per article whereby Wikipedia 3.86 (Terdiman, 2005). The number has proves to us that we need to look out on more or a few encyclopedia to get a better insight rather than trusting on one which make not so accurate. Wikipedia although may sometimes proves to be not so reliable, it can give us some basic knowledge and the starting ‘know how’ before we are able to find more valid information regarding the matters concerned. Morkes and Nielsen (1997) maintains that readers don’t want to be fed with false facts, thus, Wikipedia need to be able to work out on its validity as it is still the ultimate encyclopedia while searching for information as it is free.
References:
Bosworth, A, 1997, “What is Wikipedia and how does it treat history”, viewed 12th June 2008, <http://hnn.us/articles/8837.html>
Morkes, J. & Nielsen, J. 1997, ‘Concise, scannable, and objective: How to write for the web’, useit.com, viewed on 12th June 2008 <http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html>
Terdiman, D 2005, Study:Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica, CnetNew.com, viewed 12th June 2008,
<http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?tag=item>
.
What is What, 2008, “What is Wikipedia”, viewed 12th June 2008,
<http://what-is-what.com/what_is/wikipedia.html>
Another spectacular goal from marvellous player David Villa have won Spain their match Vs Russia in Euro 2008, in contrast, this stiff and competitive football scenario is well portrayed in the ‘rivalry’ between Wikipedia Vs Britannica. Which of these two will finally won the ‘match of the minds and hearts’ of their audience? But before that, most essentially, what are Wikipedia and Brittanica?
Generally, Wikipedia is a FREE online encyclopedia whereby Wiki means ‘fast’ in Hawaiian word (What-is-what, 2008). In addition, it has always been the first stuff that comes to mind while searching for information. Furthermore, a person with an online connection could readily edit the information in Wikipedia as it is termed as “sum of public human knowledge” (What-is-what, 2008). In contrast, Britannica is an encyclopedia existing in both print and online that have been getting rare reviews regarding their validity of their information setting the path of reliable example (Terdiman, 2005). However, there is a cost incurred in order to get the information from this encyclopedia.
Wikipedia has always being criticised of portraying inaccurate and invalid results as anyone are able to edit the piece of data, as a result, could we really trust Wikipedia? According to Bosworth (2004), Wikipedia is bias and the coverage is not that comprehensive as some information regarding Putlizer prize winner James Mcperson are not published even thought he had an article regarding him. In addition, only Stephen Ambrose case is discussed in “Historians on the hot seat” while there are sixteen recent cases.
A study by Nature has illustrated that Britannica makes 2.92 mistakes per article whereby Wikipedia 3.86 (Terdiman, 2005). The number has proves to us that we need to look out on more or a few encyclopedia to get a better insight rather than trusting on one which make not so accurate. Wikipedia although may sometimes proves to be not so reliable, it can give us some basic knowledge and the starting ‘know how’ before we are able to find more valid information regarding the matters concerned. Morkes and Nielsen (1997) maintains that readers don’t want to be fed with false facts, thus, Wikipedia need to be able to work out on its validity as it is still the ultimate encyclopedia while searching for information as it is free.
References:
Bosworth, A, 1997, “What is Wikipedia and how does it treat history”, viewed 12th June 2008, <http://hnn.us/articles/8837.html>
Morkes, J. & Nielsen, J. 1997, ‘Concise, scannable, and objective: How to write for the web’, useit.com, viewed on 12th June 2008 <http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html>
Terdiman, D 2005, Study:Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica, CnetNew.com, viewed 12th June 2008,
<http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?tag=item>
.
What is What, 2008, “What is Wikipedia”, viewed 12th June 2008,
<http://what-is-what.com/what_is/wikipedia.html>
No comments:
Post a Comment