Know It All

(Post based off the article written by Stacy Schiff for The New Yorker, found here!)


The author's main point, I believe, we're how wikipedia was created (and the history of encyclopedias in general), why it's important to the world (the world because it's available in over 200 languages), and how Wikipedia works (she went on... and on... about admins and the editing process).

If credible writing means that you got information from good and reliable sources, then wikipedia, techinically, would be considered not exactly credible writing. But the article by Schiff had a lot of supporting detail, that, as far as I know, would be reliable. In the passage: 
Is Wikipedia accurate? Last year, Nature published a survey comparing forty-two entries on scientific topics on Wikipedia with their counterparts in Encyclopædia Britannica. According to the survey, Wikipedia had four errors for every three of Britannica’s, a result that, oddly, was hailed as a triumph for the upstart. Such exercises in nitpicking are relatively meaningless, as no reference work is infallible. Britannica issued a public statement refuting the survey’s findings, and took out a half-page advertisement in the Times, which said, in part, “Britannica has never claimed to be error-free. We have a reputation not for unattainable perfection but for strong scholarship, sound judgment, and disciplined editorial review.” Later, Jorge Cauz, Britannica’s president, told me in an e-mail that if Wikipedia continued without some kind of editorial oversight it would “decline into a hulking mediocre mass of uneven, unreliable, and, many times, unreadable articles.” Wales has said that he would consider Britannica a competitor, “except that I think they will be crushed out of existence within five years.”
This passage shows supporting details, like the survey, which showed the error comparison between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. Then, she showed how EBrit handled this. As well as, a supporting quote from the Brits. She also included the detail of how Wales handled it.

The design comparison between Wikipedia and EBritannica is obvious- one is a website and the other is a book. The EBrit is clearly a reflective item; the books sit on the shelf and look all smart and nice. Wikipedia is just a website. Not really meant to be seen, but to be used. Wikipedia has an amazing behavioral advantage. There's not a lot of searching and flipping- you just look up exactly what you want to know and (more than likely) it's there. Not to mention, the site has an immense amount of articles, and if I remember correctly, more than EBrit. The editing process for the two are different as well. Wikipedia allows nearly anyone and everyone to add or delete information on a topic. There are many, many people that contribute to Wikipedia. Now, EBrit also has many people researching and writing, but, I think it's fair to say, Wikipedia allows a more "variable" writer/editor. Of course, Wikipedia is edited and monitored, but it does allow more "BS" than EBrit. And important feature to note is the price. Wikipedia is free! EBrit is outrageously expensive. Not to mention rather wasteful (paper-wise). When something is more expensive many people think that it is better or have less errors, but that isn't exactly so. In all fairness, the modern person would probably be more drawn to the free, seemingly limitless, and overall simple Wikipedia than a stuffy ol' book.