03-14-2012, 01:54 AM
The one thing I miss about encyclopaedias (and I admittedly haven't touched one in 15-20 years) is as a kid flipping through the pages learning new things with cool pictures.
Wikipedia ranges from excellent articles like you have found, to utter cr@p. It all depends on who contributes to an article, and when last the article was rewritten by someone with delusions of competence in the field. Some articles in areas in which I am knowledgeable are greatly lacking in rigor and accuracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
Some studies say the Wikipedia is nearly as accurate, some say it's more accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
JoeH wrote:
[quote=Carnos Jax]
No, enlighten me. I thought Wikipedia was generally more accurate than a print encyclopedia, and better written. My own experiences suggest this to be true (in areas where I am an 'expert').
Wikipedia ranges from excellent articles like you have found, to utter cr@p. It all depends on who contributes to an article, and when last the article was rewritten by someone with delusions of competence in the field. Some articles in areas in which I am knowledgeable are greatly lacking in rigor and accuracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
Some studies say the Wikipedia is nearly as accurate, some say it's more accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.