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

[mattkime]

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.

did you correct them?

[bwicklander]

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

I had an instructor knock me down a grade for using a Wikipedia - the subject matter was well known (dowry in India) she also gave credit to other students that used blogs as sources. Ticked me off!

....Justice!

[sekker]

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.

Lots of errors in my parents' EB - especially 10 years after printing.

That is, even if 'perfect' at the time of authoring, data drift was an issue.

I'm not sure why people have an axe to grind with Wikipedia. Honestly have no clue.

[Carnos Jax]

I think the key is knowing the limitations of each type of source and utilizing multiple sources when warranted. However, if I had to pick only one source, Wikipedia would most likely be it.

[JoeH]

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

I had an instructor knock me down a grade for using a Wikipedia - the subject matter was well known (dowry in India) she also gave credit to other students that used blogs as sources. Ticked me off!

....Justice!
The instructor would probably have knocked off points for using an encyclopedia as well, even if it was the Britannica. Wikipedia and encyclopedias are not considered primary sources, some would not even consider them secondary sources. Now a blog could be a primary source if you were able to confirm that the writer was writing their own experience or opinion, but not for other purposes. Citations in wikipedia can be useful for finding primary sources, but those should be compared to others.

[ka jowct]

mattkime wrote:
[quote=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.

did you correct them?
Yes.

[$tevie]

So can anyone name any other encyclopedias without Googling. I could only recall one other company, but when I Googled that I went on to find three others that I feel bad that I didn't also remember.

Britannica (and others) will still exist online. The lack of a print edition makes me sad mostly because I grew up with them. But I also truly believe that leafing through a print encyclopedia provides a great opportunity to stumble across topics that one might never Google in a million years. The serendipity of reading an encyclopedia is a great thing.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

World Book and Funk & Wagnell's come to mind.

[Article Accelerator]

JoeH wrote: Some articles in areas in which I am knowledgeable are greatly lacking in rigor and accuracy.

You have the power to change that. Do you have the time?

[N-OS X-tasy!]

Article Accelerator wrote:
[quote=JoeH]Some articles in areas in which I am knowledgeable are greatly lacking in rigor and accuracy.

You have the power to change that. Do you have the time?
That's not the point.