They have given you only two choices: an open-source online encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia or a well-respected online proprietary encyclopaedia such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica? Which will you choose? Why?
Take into account quality, accuracy, cost, the needs of particular cultures and any other factors that you feel are relevant.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA ARGUMENTS
Group VB said:
Our group goes with the Britannica. And we choose Britannica for basically two reasons: accuracy and user-friendly. We have our arguments as follows.
Firstly, if only one encyclopedia can be left for human beings, it has the responsibility of the continuity of knowledge. Our offspring will have to depend on it to study, to explore, so the accuracy is very important, because we don’t want to mislead them. And Britannica is more accurate than Wikipedia. Quoted from Hioberg (senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. ) ‘Britannica has published more than a hundred Nobel Prize winners and thousands of other well-known experts and scholars. Contrary to Wikipedia, Britannica's contributor base is transparent and not anonymous.’[1] This is the main reason for our choices.
Secondly, we found that Britannica is more user-friendly than Wikipedia. Here are the homepages of these two encyclopedia.
We can judge from the pictures above that although Wikipedia has a lot of information, but it is too messy, because the page is not so well-organized. As for Britannica, we have clear categories, we have dictionary and news, we also list some articles like news for today. It’s easier for us to find useful information from this well-organized page. And we searched for ‘Plato’ as a test. The result just as follows.
Wikipedia simply pumped out a page talking about who Plato is and his theories and life and so on. It did give out great lists of footnotes, references and extensional readings. But Britannica did even better. It listed all the result on the page, and when you put your mouse on each of them there would be a brief introduction of the resources so that you can choose what to read more specifically and easily. And you can choose to read Ebook or magazine or dictionary.
As we discussed above, Britannica has obvious advantage over Wikipedia in accuracy and user-friendly. So we absolutely support Britannica to be the only encyclopedia in the world.
[1] DOW JONES REPRINTS, ‘Will Wikipedia Mean the EndOf Traditional Encyclopedias?’ September 12, 2006, The wallstreet journal online.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-WIKIPEDIA ARGUMENTS
Group Zara said:
1) Many different authors
More information can be posted faster, on more topics. Also, errors can be corrected faster.
With a broader spectrum of authors there is less bias and more diversity in perspectives. This creates a more democratic system.
One example of when this was a problem for Britannica was with their article on Hinduism. More information: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/
2) Better starting place for research
Many more links to other sources on Wikipedia. Example: When we looked at both sites pages on Pablo Picasso Wikipedia listed over 60 external links while Britannica only had 10.
More up to date information on Wikipedia since it is easier to change and update quickly. Examples of how Britannica takes longer for up to date information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
When a person approaches Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research and not as their only source it makes accuracy errors not matter so much, because additional research will correct those if there are any. We consider ourselves living evidence for this point as this is how we approach our own research.
Group Happy schooldiscuss said:
FREE ACCESSING
On the internet, the concept of "free for sharing" is very important that will burst the development of everything and bring positive competition.
Wikipedia provides free access to all of human knowledge, ultimately providing free knowledge to anyone on anything. No fees or hidden costs- just knowledge. Furthermore it provides a neutral point of view. Since the writers and editors of Wikipedia are everyday people just like you and me, they provide both sides of a story, while a for-profit encyclopedia company may edit or revise articles or sides of a story in order to keep shareholders happy.
As a collaborative encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows people from a variety of backgrounds to come together to share knowledge and information with the rest of the world. It starts a dialogue about a specific topic and encourages the rest of the world to part-take in this dialogue. As a multilingual encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an exclusive encyclopedia; one does not need to know English to understand the text. Articles in Spanish, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Chinese are just the beginning of Wikipedia’s multilingual text.
Real-Time Content
Article writers have the ability to change and update articles that in anytime, anywhere, they don’t have to go through the book publishers. So, the Wikipedia can be served as an online newspaper. The article about Manila hostage crisis is created on 23 August, right after it happened.
Group members:Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina said:
1. Wikipedia can make immediate changes and correction.
>The founder of the Wikipedia tells a fact that a team of elites is always behind the Wiki system in order to monitor the Wiki anytime and anyhere. So, everything on Wikipedia is always work in progress.
evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4&feature=related
>There is a great number of volunteers from all over the world who always ready to add evidence, links, proof and reference to issues.
evidence: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff
2. The accuracy of Wikipedia is high.
>Wikipedia is more neutral. Because everyone can post what they know or think on the website.
>Encyclopaedia Brittanica may contains some biased information because Brittanica didn't display its rough draft and everything must be checked by a copy editor.
>Also, there are some unaccepttable and minor errors in Brittanica.
evidence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2
Group EasyE said:
We think that wikipedia is the most popular encyclopedia in the world. As L. Gordon Crovitz said, "Wikipedia is in the top five Web sites, it is often the top result on Google searches, and it gets 97% of traffic to online encyclopedias." This indicates that wikipedia is more accessible and user friendly.
(Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897399273491031.html)
Dale Hoiberg suggests that Wikipedia simply has a lot of people freely editing encyclopedia articles produces more balanced coverage. This encourges the people to share knowledge and discuss. The database is all-rounded and offer different arguments. So, people can think twice and justify themselves.
(Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115756239753455284.html)
(Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897399273491031.html)
Dale Hoiberg suggests that Wikipedia simply has a lot of people freely editing encyclopedia articles produces more balanced coverage. This encourges the people to share knowledge and discuss. The database is all-rounded and offer different arguments. So, people can think twice and justify themselves.
(Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115756239753455284.html)
Read them though and upload your comments:
is the argument logical?
is it well-supported (with facts, with additional points and/with examples)?
is the argument convincing/persuasive?
how could it be improved?
Dear Happy School Discuss Group:
ReplyDeleteWe liked your point about the multilingual texts, we think that is important! Also the example of real time news updates is strong. It is interesting to think of Wikipedia as a news paper in addition to a research source.
Good points, but we think you could make them even stronger by adding more support and examples, that would make your arguments more convincing.
xoxo, Group Zara
Hi Group Zara, Here's some feedback.
ReplyDeleteOverall, your arguments are quite convincing. Nice point about the research tool and availability of links. Well supported. Some arguments would be stronger if you spelled them out more fully. Eg can you say what exactly was the problem with the article on Hinduism, and are there other examples of that kind of inaccuracy? After all, an encyclopedia is a HUGE document so one error isn't such a big deal. Did you look at the Nature magazine article? Or can you find examples of bias? I think your argument on accuracy is not convincing-can you find evidence that Wikipedia is more accurate than many people think? or that Brittanica isn't? -Carol
Dear Happy SchoolDiscuss group, I think your "free for sharing" point is persuasive but would be more convincing if you had more evidence to back it up. Can you find some examples of Brittanica bias (there are some famous cases) to strengthen your case? Your point about real-time content is not so persuasive. Can you explain why it matters? And maybe add some more examples?
ReplyDeleteCarol
Dear Group members: Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina,
ReplyDeleteWe agree that having more authors on Wikipedia means it is more likely that someone will catch an error and be able to correct it quickly. But do you think that having more authors also could mean that it is easier for these errors to be created in the first place?
Also maybe you could pull out a specific quote or part of the youtube video for your readers to focus on because it was too much information/too long for us to know exactly what your evidence was. We think this would support your argument to make it really great!
xoxo, Group Zara
Dear Zara
ReplyDeleteWe strongly agree with your group!!
We have also mentioned about the "Bias" part, and it is one of the strongest arguments. People from different countries can also edit the same article and sharing their opinions.
You have provided strong arguments and evidence in favor of Wikipedia. To strengthen your argument (2) Better starting place for research, you can include some hyperlinks to that article.
Dear Group EasyE
ReplyDeleteYour argument can be improved if you can provide the background information of L. Gordon Crovitz and Dale Hoiberg, as people may not know them.
Dear Group EasyE,
ReplyDeleteWe don't exactly understand your first argument, we're not sure how popularity leads to quality. Maybe provide more evidence or explain in more detail what you mean here?
We were also a little confused by your second point but think that we agree. Were you saying that having more authors creates an interesting discussion surrounding the topics on Wikipedia that would not exist if there was only one author? That sounds like a really interesting point, and we agree that it brings the information to a more thoughtful level.
Maybe using more specific evidence would help your arguments :-)
xoxo, Group Zara
Group EEasy and Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina,
ReplyDeleteYour points are reasonable, but can you argue them more convincingly?
Eg GroupEeasy, can you spell out why being accessible and user-friendly IS a good thing? Some people may think that mere accessibility is not such a big deal compared to the quality of the information. More evidence is needed to make your point persuasive. Your second point would also benefit from more supporting points and the use of examples or more evidence.
Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina, Your arguments need more elaboration and are not quite logical. WHY is being a work in progress a good thing for an encyclopedia (because some may think it is a bad thing). The simple fact that many volunteers work on the encyclopedia is also not a persuasive argument. You need to link this fact with that making it thorough, or comprehensive, or relatively free of bias, or SOMETHING, and have some evidence to support it.
Carol
Dear Group EasyE:
ReplyDeleteWe agree with your points.
Your arguments are logical and you have a lot of support. The arguments your brought up are good but not very convincing. You didn't elaborate enough on personal opinions on the issues, instead you gave a lot of articles.
Love,
Group Good!
Dear group vb,
ReplyDeleteYou provided very good evidence.but there are some criticise ,such as the informations is not enough than wiki.also,the information is not updated.When there is any mistake people will edit it immediately on wiki,but Britannica can't.
Group good
Dear Penny, Maggie, Kira, Tina and Millie's group
ReplyDeleteYour second argument is not that persuasive because you don't provide the evidence for Wikipedia, even Brittanica makes some mistakes, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia has a higher accuracy. You should provide some studies which is about the accuracy of Wikipedia.
Big 4 group ( ku ching ching, mok yee mei, carin, yota) said that:
ReplyDeletethe comments voiced out by Group Zara is good with reference, like website, which make the comments concret and persuasive. However, they your guys point out that wikipedia have less bias and more diversity, no further explaination but only website is provided.
on the other hand, what the group happy schooldiscuss said is ver logical, esp. when they said that the authors may cater for the preference of the book shareholders by revise some articles, but so piety that they lack supportive evidence.
Dear Group: Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some great and logical points but you guys didn't add a lot of your own opinions, either. May be you could add a little more?
Dear Group Happy School,
ReplyDeleteYour arguments are very impressive and logical. You didn't really put a lot of cited materials into it but it was still very good!
Love,
Group Good
Dear group zara,
ReplyDeleteWe are totally agree with your point.and we think that nowadays the technology is enhancing the effectiveness we should follow the trend and get the newest informaton.Besides,wiki also provide many others relevant links and sources ,so wiki is very good for us.
Group good
Dear VB Group,
ReplyDeleteWell presented and persuasive arguments. It is good to see your comparison of the two "Plato" pages and read your account how and why you feel Brittanica is more user friendly. Perhaps you could be more detailed however about why one type of layout is better than another, and especially regarding why this makes the EB a better encyclopedia overall. Your point about Brittanica publishing many Nobel Prize recipients is good. On the other hand, it doesn't follow that the fact that 'Wikipedia's contributor base is transparent and not anonymous’ makes it not as good an encyclopedia. You need to make this point more convincingly. How does knowing the authors'identities and status matter?
Carol
Dear Group VB,
ReplyDeleteAs a group that is supporting Wikipedia we are going to argue some of your points. HAHA.
Here is an article we found about some of the errors on Britannica, because of this we don't necessarily agree that they are more accurate than Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
Also we discussed your point that Britannica has a team of elite scholars writing its posts while Wikipedia's authors remain anonymous. We agree that this is true, but believe that anonymous does not necessarily mean worse, it could be brilliant scholars writing for Wikipedia as well, we don't know though, because as you mentioned they are anonymous.
As for your second point, we agree that some Wikipedia pages might seem confusing (in terms of layout) to some people we think this might be a question of personal preference. But also, the top priority of Wikipedia seems to be simply posting information and as much as possible, and not how it looks.
We think also that Wikipedia were really as poorly designed as you make it sound it would not be as popular as it is. People would not want to use a source that is too confusing or badly designed for them to find the information they want.
xoxo, Group Zara
Dear VB,
ReplyDeleteYou provided strong argument and evidence, but we have a question. We think Wikipedia is more user friendly and accessible because it is free and frequently appears on the search engines. For Brittanica, one must go to the website and pay, to access the information.
Dear group Zara:
ReplyDeleteHi, we are group (Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina)
We agree with your points!
We do think that the speed of editing of Wikipedia would be much faster. As what we post and said can skip the process of checking by the owner of Brittnica.
Besides, as everyone can add details to Wikipedia. Volunteers from different places could add information to issues. So, the reference links in Wikipedia would have a lot more than others.
And of course the Wikipedia could post the most updated information and issues as the edit funtion is open. As your group said, "it is easier to change and update quickly."
It seems that your group and our group share some similar thoughts! =)