[Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica

[Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt]

Yes, but on the other hand you're supposed to read Britannica's yearly
update whenever you're doing any form of serious or school research.

Does everybody do it? No!

And there are equivalents for Wikipedia.  If you're doing any serious
or school research you really have to go check out all of the entries
on the "talk" page (also known as the discussion page) of any article,
and maybe even check out each major contributor to that article, by
looking at contributors in the edit history pages of the article.  The
edit history page of each article is also essential for looking at
trends in the creation and update of the article.

Does everybody do it? No!

Alain Vaillancourt

--- Randy Souther <southerr at usfca.edu> a écrit :

> FYI, cold fusion in 1989 was a media fiasco, but not a fraud. The  
> research is still controversial, but continues today with  
> publications in more than 50 peer-reviewed journals. But you would  
> never realize this by reading Britannica's one-paragraph article,  
> which is stuck in 1989; Wikipedia's gives a reasonable overview, and 
> 
> is up-to-date.
> 
> Randy Souther
> Reference Technology Librarian
> Gleeson Library | Geschke Center
> University of San Francisco
> 
> southerr at usfca.edu
> 415-422-5388



	

	
		
__________________________________________________________
Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
magasinage.yahoo.ca