Wikipedia was introduced to me as the bane of my teacher's lives. I was told never to use Wikipedia as a source, that it was littered with lies and misinformation. Now I'm not arguing that this wasn't true at the time, but it's existence has evolved into a much more credible source. With the increased user population and flow to Wikipedia has allowed it to transform itself into a self-perpetuated system with it's community sifting through information, validating authentic information and keeping lies at bay.
I still believe that Encyclopedia Britannica is the more credible source between the two, but I do feel that within 10 years, Wikipedia (or perhaps some equivalent we haven't foreseen) will take the lead. As the internet continues to be accessed by more and more people, those willing to provide professional and accurate information for free increases as well. A platform that takes advantage of this online community, such as Wikipedia, is setting itself up to just be a system that will be perceived as "the only possible solution" and it will seem that these old, single sourced databases are no longer competitive.
The major draw back to Britannica besides the aforementioned, I feel, is the need to register and be charged for a service that is provided for free elsewhere. Whether that source is less-credible or not becomes irrelevant when it is provided for free against a competitor with a service fee.
No comments:
Post a Comment