I’m not sure who will be the most accurate, but I think both will grow more to be like the other. Wikipedia will find more ways to verify their content and Encyclopedia Britannica will find ways to appeal to the masses with a more extensive (& more current) wealth of knowledge as Wikipedia does. I use Wikipedia to look up random facts about pop culture. As a test, I searched for “Alicia Keys” in both encyclopedias. Encyclopedia Britannica had a 438 word article while Wikipedia had a 4000+ word article. Wikipedia even mentioned her giving birth to a baby boy not even a week ago. I think that’s the strength of Wikipedia. The weakness of Wikipedia is that I could edit Alicia Keys’ article to say that she gave birth to a green alien. :)
In the future, I think it would be great if Encyclopedia Britannica & Wikipedia became partners. People would visit Wikipedia first and then follow the link to Encyclopedia Britannica’s content to find more in-depth (and verified) information. Perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica could be the “fact checker” of Wikipedia.
Also I think it would be great if Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica created smaller encyclopedias based on specific subjects. Since I am still thinking about Alicia Keys, I’ll throw out that they should create an online encyclopedia of Hip Hop Culture that updates instantly like Wikipedia. I would subscribe to the RSS feed of that encyclopedia if it existed. Also I would consider purchasing the encyclopedia in printed form at the end of every year, if I knew that it was nicely designed, organized, and verified. Growing up, I remember people having printed encyclopedias, and bragging about having the newest encyclopedia collection in their home. Now it wouldnt surprise me if smaller library systems didnt have current encyclopedias.
No comments:
Post a Comment