Constant Content

I wanted to put the word out to use caution when using online encyclopedias. I thought that encyclopedia.com and wikipedia encyclopedia was pretty good, until I started double checking some scientific data. Encylopedia.com was by far the worst. On a single page, I found more than 10 descriptions that are considered false by industry standards. I only found one descrepancy in Wikipedia, perhaps a typo. I came to the conclusion that perhaps encyclopedias fall short in the sciences. Needless to say, I was shocked.

In case your wondering, it's not my sources that are wrong. I use the organizations that have the final say, those that set the industry standards and the most renown educational institutions in the field.

I've become wary of Wikipedia as well, following a recent discussion of its validity on a journalism forum. As you say, it's better to verify facts and stats from established organisations, and not rely soley on online sources like that.

Rachel

And no wonder, as they do not claim to be the last word and are open to constant updation and editing!

I usually take facts from a few sources, and if they disagree, then generally look for a very dependable source, or exclude that fact altogether.

I've not used encyclopedia.com but surely the point of WIKIpedia is that it is a WIKI. They are, by definition, an open source of information. It even says on the homepage that anyone can edit it.

Imagine all the lunatic Internet surfers in the world and then imagine that you're entrusting your reference work to any of them that want to submit articles.

What is worrying, though, is that Encyclopedia.com uses the Columbia Encyclopedia as it's source of reference. Any external links are obviously not from the same source and many journalists won't even consider the use of the Columbia Enclyclopedia because of it's alleged innacuracies and biases.

One website points out the two definitions of The Koran and The Bible. The Koran is described as 'being the word of God' suggesting that it is a definite historic piece of literature whereas the Bible is described as being 'believed, by many Christians, to be the word of God' suggesting that it's all a load of rubbish.

I in no way want to start a theological discussion but that is either biased or literally ignorant. God help any children who use the Columbia as reference for school work.

Just a thought when you next use any information from any 'trusted' source of this kind, just because it's on an Internet site doesn't mean it's true.

Of course you could always state that the Koran is believed, by the Columbia Encyclopedia, to be the word of God but according to the Columbia Encyclopedia the Bible is believed by Christians to be the word of God.

Oh, how the little things irritate me.

In fact, for a good definition of a wiki why not look on wikipedia

[[A Wiki is]]

is a group of Web pages that allows users to add content, as on an Internet forum, but also permits others (often completely unrestricted) to edit the content. The term wiki also refers to the collaborative software (wiki engine) used to create such a website (see wiki software).

In essence, the wiki is merely a vast simplification of the process of creating HTML pages, and thus is a very effective way to exchange information through collaborative effort. Wiki is sometimes interpreted as the acronym for 'what I know, is', which describes the knowledge contribution, storage and exchange function.

Wiki proponents often spell 'wiki' with a lower case "w". "Wiki" with an upper case "W" and "WikiWikiWeb" are both used to refer specifically to the first wiki ever created (25 March 1995). The WikiWikiWeb is a section of the Portland, Oregon, website of software consultancy Cunningham & Cunningham, as is the Portland Pattern Repository.

Thought this article about Wikipedia may be of interest - http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/art ... 58,00.html

Apparently, people keep changing facts, so do watch out if you're using it for reference purposes!