n Both Encyclopedia and Wikipedia have pros and cons which differ from each other.
Starting with Encyclopedia pros, I found that information from this resource is more reliable and provide more information regarding any type of subject.
In addition to this point of view, the information provided is large and concrete, and because of it, you end up with a better understandable of your subject. And if you are doing research that will help you to build up more convinced arguments.
However, encyclopedia has some weakness because while I was searching on my topic and population, I found that the earlier encyclopedia are kind of different compared to the newest. What I mean is that information change based on the period of time and on people ages when they had been written. I believe that is normal since literature changes based on society generation concepts.
n Information from Wikipedia is more rapid to be found and it is free. Also, there is a variety of information on a topic and all of them because writers research on the subject among diverse resources before they start publish a topic or concept on the website (at least it is what I believe).
n However, I am not sure about who verify the publication. It seems like anyone can come and write something about a topic. Because of this point, I will say that is not good at all and those information are not reliable. As one of my professors said one day in class: “never cited Wikipedia in a research papers always go back to the references if you find something good and double check yourself.”
n Based on my population I found 10 prints encyclopedia from the Library selves. To find those, I went to the library page and I typed Lesbian gay. From this, I found 737 resources which talk about LGBT. To have better sources, I narrowed my resources by selected on the left side of the page “Reference (in-Library Use Only). Then, out of 737 only 25 where located. Then Out of the 25 resources I found 10 encyclopedias talking about LGBT. Actually, I a little bit sad or I do not know how to look it on that type of resources, but I did not find any of them talking about my topic. I mean by that I could not find anything with gay parents and their relation with their children.
n I went to the main page and under “Research Assistance” I select “LGBT” among of the numerous subject Guides options provided. Then I scrolled down on the page and fount this E-encyclopedia : http://www.glbtq.com/
n I will go with an encyclopedia instead of Wikipedia because I found Wikipedia kind of nor consistent. I do not like the way it works in the fact that it is a summary of another summary. On other words it is a small group of people who review and rewrite information based on other information and references. What you keep in mind is the concepts of someone who thinks that something is right and good about something. In addition, I am not sure about if they fix the recent issue they have with authorities about Wikipedia to be a plagiarist website. In contrast, encyclopedia have an original side and dependent of the publisher I can choose to give more credit to the one I want to get my work done. Even E-encyclopedia is better organized than Wikipedia regarding my topic.
Hi Carene,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reflective post on encyclopedias and Wikipedia.
You are right--as things change in history, culture, technology, etc., a newer traditionally published encyclopedia should have that new information in it.
The www.glbtq.com online encyclopedia is quite good--you can even sign up as a "member", and they will give you information about new entries and subject guides that they create.
Did you copy down the call numbers of the print encyclopedias to go to Reference and see if you could locate an entry on your topic? What did you find?
In regard to Wikipedia, your description--"a small group of people who review and rewrite information based on other information and references"--is the same as what people who write and review traditionally published encyclopedias do, yes?
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Professor Wexelbaum
Hi Rachel!
ReplyDeleteDid you copy down the call numbers of the print encyclopedias to go to Reference and see if you could locate an entry on your topic? What did you find?
Yes, I did but unfortunately I did not find much I expect. It was all about definition of concepts, rights, and literatures based of gay, lesbian writers in different societies. However, I found good staff in the website and I actually a member, I signed. More details are given there and I find those interesting while I went over the information from page to page: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/children_of_glbtq_parents.html
In regard to Wikipedia, your description--"a small group of people who review and rewrite information based on other information and references"--is the same as what people who write and review traditionally published encyclopedias do, yes?
I am taking back what I have said regarding what is the best between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia. As we discussed in class and I got it now, each resource has its pros and cons and dependent on the topic and who have done the research, you judge and make a choice to use the one find to have more credit for as reference.
Hmm...I am wondering if our encyclopedias about families have anything about same-sex parents? You do not have to look; I am curious now...if not, I will have to remedy this situation...
DeleteWikipedia continues to evolve...I think they owe it to the public not to be so secretive about their review process!
Professor Wexelbaum
I review my blog entries, syllabus, and power points posted by you Rachel regarding the different subjects we covered in class and I found some stuffs interesting. From this fact, I have decided to update information on the subject.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the pros, I found that much information in encyclopedia are mostly based on groups, concepts, lives, population histories.
Based on this it, I agree that because the early encyclopedia is based on opinions, there are too many prejudices. Also since no credits are given to who assisted in production we are not able to tell if the sources is good or not. We learn that a good source is the one which are used cited a lot and review too.
I agree too when you said in class that internet open mind of people and because of this fact there is more collaboration. Wikipedia is no only free but people around the world can communicate and share the same information more quickly than a print encyclopedia (because in some part of the world good books are not easily accessible). Information is fast and allows everyone to find when and where we want to use it (information regarding a topic or subject). However, because everyone can write, post, delete, update on a subject in Wikipedia, information is risky.
Absolutely correct, Carene! We can't make generalizations about encyclopedias or Wikipedia...instead, we have to evaluate the entries that we find using the evaluation criteria, and judge each one on an individual basis.
DeleteI am going to post about another hair-raising experience in writing encyclopedia entries for one of the strangest encyclopedias I have ever seen. Unless the editors address my concerns, I do not think that I will be buying it for the collection...
Sincerely,
Professor Wexelbaum