Wikipedia analysis

The article that I have chosen to compare for my paper is on Socrates. Often Wikipedia is regarded as an unreliable source for research when compared to other online references like Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes, there is actually is difference that affects the scholarly research from the information provided on Wikipedia.

The best thing about Wikipedia is that it concisely provides topic wise systematic information on every topic for ‘short and quick reference’ of the summary on our search topic, a distinguishable and easy to note introduction. We also credit it for providing information in a very systematic and orderly manner and is quite too detailed in providing information and pictures on an article. Wikipedia is a good source for starting with basic information as it gives a summary in the beginning that almost gives the reader an approximate knowledge of what he is reading.

Wikipedia is not considered reliable due to the fact that it can be edited by everyone, so we do not know about the accuracy of the information or the actual contributors of the article. Also due to the random editing feature of Wikipedia the information quite a times has to be cross checked with other sources thus making Wikipedia an unreliable source of information. Since Britannica authors are more experts and knowledgeable in their field of expertise, it can be trusted as a genuine source of information and can be used for research. Wikipedia contributors are always anonymous and free to just share their part of knowledge on the forum and therefore we really have to cross check with other sources to determine the accuracy of Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia accepts the fact that it cannot be used for research purposes. Another feature of Wikipedia is that ...

... middle of paper ...

...on Socrates, the French version of the document is longer than the English version and has more information. Therefore this creates problems as not all Wiki readers get the same information from it. Britannica, on the other hand, is accessed only when needed for a more accurate source of information, and therefore is mostly referred to for information by students, teachers and other professionals, more for work-related purposes and has less readers due to its availability only in English language.

Therefore, from my analysis I can say that both Wikipedia and Britannica are good in their own ways. Britannica is more accurate and better in providing research and educational information whereas Wikipedia is good for quick references.

*(1)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socrates#Edit_requests

Works Cited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socrates#Edit_requests