Hatrack River Forum: Revisiting the wikipedia thing

This is topic Revisiting the wikipedia thing in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=034418

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

Here's the Encarta article on the Enlightenment.

Here's the wikipedia one.

And Here's my post on the same subject.

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.

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :

So how much of the wikipedia article did you write? [Wink]

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

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.

[ May 02, 2005, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :

Show me that wiki is more consistently accurate than Encarta and I'll switch.

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :

Twinky -- show us that it isn't. [Razz]

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

Y'know, twinky, using an encyclopedia is not an exclusive proposition [Razz]

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.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

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.

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :

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 ( [Wink]

), 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++.

[ May 02, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]