One of these things is not like the others, in that it does a really crappy job in actually explaining what the Enlightenment was. Heck, it doesn't even mention the Scottish and American ones. But it's the "official" encyclopedia.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
None. I didn't even read it until after I wrote my post and I was looking for external sources to flesh it out and support it. But the thing is, the wikipedia thing was fleshed out and, you know, correct, while the Encarta one was not. In this case, the "official" reviewed and edited version was a far inferior source of information than the wiki one. And also, the wiki one contained easy links to external sources of information that the Encarta one was lacking.
So tell me twink, if you were looking for information to start investigating the Enlightenment, which one would be better?
edit: I'm willing to bet that I could go through a bunch of the other things that I know quite a bit about and show how the wikipedia entries were more comprehensive and correct than the "official" encyclopedia ones. As I said in the earlier thread, I'm somewhat amazed by how accurate it's been considering the wiki nature of it.
posted
Y'know, twinky, using an encyclopedia is not an exclusive proposition
If nothing else, you have to admit your typical wikipedia article links to orders of magnitude more additional sources to work from, which is incredibly useful.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, I don't care anywhere near enough what version of the encyclopedia you use to put much effort into this. I'm showing why I (and others) hold wikipedia in relatively good regard in comparison to "offical" encyclopedias. Initially, I didn't expect it to be all that worthwhile, but I've been pleasantly suprised.
And in this case, jeez, it's the Enlightenment. One of the most significant philosophical movements and one of the major influences on the formation and character of both our respective countries. That's a pretty big thing to mess up on.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH: The burden of proof is on the one making the claim -- in this case, wikipedia.
fugu: I'm aware of that, but seeing as how I use neither most of the time as a consequence of my vast storehouse of mental knowledge ( ), I wouldn't lose anything by switching. I don't remember the last time I looked in an encyclopedia to learn something, and obviously I've never used wikipedia at all.
Edit: Squick, that's true. It certainly is a big thing to mess up. Encarta--, wikipedia++.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
