Wikipedia: An Inaccurate Yet Helpful Encyclopedia

692 Words2 Pages

From the dawn of its time, mankind has always created mistakes and errors. In all of its creations and inventions, there is bound to be some error here or there. Mediums such as print and digital are innovations of mankind. Therefore, we can conclude that such mediums contain some type of error or inaccuracy. For the past decade, two such “pedias” have been argued about their accuracy, reliability, and facilitation. Even though it contains error by allowing common people to edit it, Wikipedia is a more helpful and comprehensible source of information than the intricacy and difficulty created by the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Despite their earlier claims and assertions, scientists and modern commenters are now withdrawing most of their accusations. Not only are they realizing that Wikipedia’s articles and information are void of numerous errors but also are witnessing the rapidly increasing use of Wikipedia, compared to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. One such columnist, Cecil Adams, recently withdrew his accusation of Wikipedia: “Quit with the Wikipedia because from the standpoint of reliability, Wikipedia might as well be written by gorillas”(Adams). Critics, like Adams, were forced to change their view because of a recent journal that compared both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. This journal, Nature, found out that out of forty-two articles analyzed by experts, both references contained the same amount of major errors, establishing the fact that Wikipedia is near accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica (Wolchover). Thus Wikipedia’s accuracy is better than what most reviewers thought would be.
Only last year, Encyclopedia Britannica declared that they would no longer be publishing any more print versions. After...

... middle of paper ...

... for many people: to contribute and safeguard the truth. Wikipedia has always played such a key opponent to the Encyclopedia Britannica because of its accessibility and use of technology. Thus Wikipedia is a very popular source of information not only because of it efficiency but also because of its uniqueness.

Works Cited

Adams, Cecil. Interview by Conrad. The Straight Dope. The Chicago Reader, 13 July 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Ashman, Matthew. “Students debate value of Wikipedia as reliable source”. Daily Sundial. California State University, 26 March 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Northern Essex Community College. “Wikipedia: Pros and Cons”. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Silverman, Matt. “Encyclopedia Britannica vs. Wikipedia”. Mashable.com. 16 March 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Wolchover, Natalie. "How Accurate Is Wikipedia?" LiveScience.com. 24 Jan. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.

Open Document