How to Choose Between Wikipedia or Classic Encyclopedias
Look at the topic and the resources available., Consider the importance of validity., Expect surprising insights., Double check.
Step-by-Step Guide
-
Step 1: Look at the topic and the resources available.
Older encyclopedias will not have information about new trends, topics, current events, and people.
You're not likely to find AJAX in your library resources.
However older topics, like Shakespeare, are likely to exist in both places. -
Step 2: Consider the importance of validity.
For some papers, research just provides background information where 100% accuracy is not critical.
Other topics require precision and quoting, something a hard encyclopedia is better to offer.
Wikipedia offers more updated information, but the validity is only as good as the source.
Online collaboratives are run by users, some are experts, some are not. , A major encyclopedia, like Britannica, can have articles written by highly intelligent experts who might describe astounding insights in their articles.
However, even the street-level Wikipedia sometimes contains articles by intelligent experts or eyewitnesses, who avoided the committee censorship, and wrote profound insights within a Wikipedia article.
Also, profound information might still exist in prior Wikipedia revisions: check the "Talk" discussion of an article to see if expert opinions were removed but still exist in prior revisions that can be viewed. , Why not use both, each will offer information to compare and contrast... sounds like a topic for a totally different paper in itself. -
Step 3: Expect surprising insights.
-
Step 4: Double check.
Detailed Guide
Older encyclopedias will not have information about new trends, topics, current events, and people.
You're not likely to find AJAX in your library resources.
However older topics, like Shakespeare, are likely to exist in both places.
For some papers, research just provides background information where 100% accuracy is not critical.
Other topics require precision and quoting, something a hard encyclopedia is better to offer.
Wikipedia offers more updated information, but the validity is only as good as the source.
Online collaboratives are run by users, some are experts, some are not. , A major encyclopedia, like Britannica, can have articles written by highly intelligent experts who might describe astounding insights in their articles.
However, even the street-level Wikipedia sometimes contains articles by intelligent experts or eyewitnesses, who avoided the committee censorship, and wrote profound insights within a Wikipedia article.
Also, profound information might still exist in prior Wikipedia revisions: check the "Talk" discussion of an article to see if expert opinions were removed but still exist in prior revisions that can be viewed. , Why not use both, each will offer information to compare and contrast... sounds like a topic for a totally different paper in itself.
About the Author
Diane Sullivan
A passionate writer with expertise in creative arts topics. Loves sharing practical knowledge.
Rate This Guide
How helpful was this guide? Click to rate: