Quote:
Originally Posted by taustin
No one should head to either for something they do not claim to do. And they claim to do different things.
|
I suspect that too much is being read into the non-credibility of the Wikipedia and the credibility of Britannica. If you stick to topics that both cover, the reliability should be quite similar. Indeed, studies have indicated such. Even if you go into topics that are covered only by Wikipedia, comply to Wikipedia guidelines, and are non-controversial you should be okay. Keep in mind that the Wikipedia does provide many forms of tools to assess problematic articles.
Also keep in mind that I'm not claiming that the Wikipedia is perfect, or even close to it. I am claiming that many of the claims about it's unreliability are overblown. Take an anonymous comment
from another thread:
Quote:
|
This is one of those controversial subjects where Wikipedia is useless, and the only thing you can really be sure of is that whatever it says is wrong.
|
Well, no. I do agree that the Wikipedia is an extremely poor source in this case because it is a controversial topic and because there is likely a conflict of interest. (I suspect that most of the people involved with the Wikipedia are opposed to DRM simply because the mission of the Wikipedia contradicts reflects open access.) Yet that doesn't mean that the article is wrong. Highly selective in what the evidence that it chooses to present, sure. Highly biased in its interpretation of that evidence, sure. You definitely need to be careful about stuff like that. Yet that doesn't mean that whatever it says on the topic is wrong.