A Win for Wikipedia?? ...2010 Encyclopaedia Britannica Is the Last!

[JoeH]

Carnos Jax wrote:
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.

[JoeH]

Chakravartin wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]ung adults) today even know how to look up information in a library...?

Sure they do.



Of course, in my day it was more like this...



...But times change.
Working in a university library, all I can say is your view of "sure they do" is wide of the mark. Some know how, but many more that I run into haven't the foggiest idea to look up information if they can't google it.

[Sam3]

I had an instructor a couple of years ago who said that she would fail anybody who used Wikipedia as a source.

[space-time]

Sam3 wrote:
I had an instructor a couple of years ago who said that she would fail anybody who used Wikipedia as a source.

Excellent.

[mattkime]

they should make wikipedia brittanica

[M A V I C]

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.

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.

[sekker]

Wikipedia is great and more transparent than EB.

It should always be used as a place to find primary sources.

Kids should be taught how to find info these days. Too bad media specialists are the first to go in tight budgets.

I've never been a big fan of EB - you did not know how to confirm their claims.

For those that don't like Wikipedia - I'm sad. You are missing a lot!

[ka jowct]

For those that don't like Wikipedia - I'm sad. You are missing a lot!

Including a lot of errors. I've found some.

[M A V I C]

ka jowct wrote:
For those that don't like Wikipedia - I'm sad. You are missing a lot!

Including a lot of errors. I've found some.

So where do you get your info that is always factual?

[JoeH]

sekker wrote:
For those that don't like Wikipedia - I'm sad. You are missing a lot!

Never said anything about not liking Wikipedia, just know its limitations. They emphasize the speed at which errors, intentional or otherwise, get corrected in their self evaluation. However, this ignores material that has a limited number of persons interested in editing it and incorrect information can stay in those areas for weeks, months or years.