We all know they exist, or at least they used to. The encyclopedia. Now we have the electronic version: Wikipedia.
Side by side comparison? There are pros and cons to both, aren't there?
Biggest selling point of Wikipedia? It is free and accessible to anyone with an internet connection, a computer-type device and electricity. If you don't have any of those things, trek your way to a garage sale to pick up a set of encyclopedias. I would say trek to the library, but they have internet, computers and electricity,
In a more sincere comparison, Wikipedia is still the clear winner. With the ability to instantly update and link to new information, Wikipedia is rarely outdated. The 1999 version of the encyclopedia we were provided, only gave a summary of about 300 words (give or take). Wikipedia offered easily three times the text and additional links to a variety of other sites to confirm and elaborate on the provided information. The hard copy of the encyclopedia gave us no pictures, no visual representation of this ancient ruler. Wikipedia, however, offered two visuals.
Even when compared to the electronic version of our hard copy encyclopedia, Wikipedia wins. The online Britannica wants my credit card information to view the entire 300 word article.
Wikipedia has fewer economic constraints. The hard copy has a finite amount of space and resources. The shipping costs are prohibitive. With Wikipedia, there is infinite space and contributions.
While Wikipedia is updated by a variety of users, it is still only a single resource. Take it as it is: a starting point.
No comments:
Post a Comment