Wikipedia

The following questions and citations are in reference to"Know it All" by Stacy Schiff.

1. What do you think are the author's main points in this article?
   
   One of the main points is that, although very young (especially, when compared to Encyclopedia Britannica), Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands entries. And the number of entries is increasing each day. It is not a formal encyclopedia where almost only academic subjects are found. Since it has a non-solid database, there is almost no limit to its size. Thus, it covers a variety of subjects of information; "how to"s, academic entries, places, everyday things... Also, it is edited constantly. Finally, through the constant editing and easy renewal/access it keeps up with the ever-changing world.
   
   
2. An important part of credible writing is selecting good supporting evidence. Select a passage from this article that illustrates the effective use of supporting detail. Explain why you think it is particularly effective.
   
   
   "Wikipedia remains a lumpy work in progress. The entries can read as though they had been written by a seventh grader: clarity and concision are lacking; the facts may be sturdy, but the connective tissue is either anemic or absent; and citation is hit or miss."

   Use of reference to other publications or supporting evidence will make the article more reliable in the readers mind. Most Wikipedia articles lack this, because everyone can write on Wikipedia and citation is not mandatory for an article to be published. Although,  the people in charge of running Wikipedia constantly check the articles and mark them for improvement or purge some text, it is not enough. The are many more users than organizers. As it is said here, people don't put much effort into making Wikipedia
   articles meet some standards like citation, clarity, non-sturdy etc. Therefore the Wikipedia articles don't seem reliable.
   
   
3. Throughout the article, the author compares Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but not specifically on design. How would you compare the two encyclopedias from a design perspective?
   
   The best advantage of Wikipedia is that it is web-based, so, people can access the information on it through any internet connection (from computers, smart-phones, even normal cell phones with internet access). This easy accessibility makes Wikipedia far more user friendly than Encyclopedia Britannica. And in a world where the internet is more popular each day, and where people are getting lazier, easy access goes a long way. However, Wikipedia lacks the physical feel. Some people like the smell and the feel of books, thus Encyclopedia Britannica is better in this sense. Another user friendly aspect of Wikipedia is the computer based search. Unlike  it is with Encyclopedia Britannica where the user needs to go through the pages to find an entry, in Wikipedia the user just types the topic and hits Search. The computer based search also by the "did you mean this..." response, where it leads the user to the desired article.