"Know it All" Questions

1. What do you think are the author's main points in this article?
The author wants people to be aware that Wikipedia is not always the most truthful source, but many of her other points are more important. The process of removing vandalism and editing seems more important than the actual vandalism or incorrect information. She portrays Wikipedia as a social place as well as an encyclopedia. It is emphasized that entries are made by normal people. This can decrease the reliability but also makes articles easier for the average person to understand.


2. An important part of credible writing is selecting good supporting evidence. Select a passage from this article that illustrates the effective use of supporting detail. Explain why you think it is particularly effective. 
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.
For years my teachers have been telling me never to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. They alway say that it is full of errors because anyone can edit it. I like that this passage uses statistics to clarify the issue. I agree that Wikipedia is not the best source to go to for research but teachers need to say that other resources have errors too. They like to think that anything published is perfect and everything on the internet is rubbish. Statistics certainly help clarify issues like these but it is important to be wary of the reason the statistic was made. Did Nature want to establish Wikipedia as a credible source? Did they want to further discredit it? 


3. Throughout the article, the author compares Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but not specifically on design. How would you compare the two encyclopedias from a design perspective?
Wikipedia is more user friendly than Encyclopedia Britannica. You can search Wikipedia and it will redirect you if you searched for something under the wrong title. Wikipedia also has links in each entry so you can easily look up a related topic without having to flip through pages or have many volumes open. Wikipedia is nice because it doesn't take up space or weigh anything. I can easily pull out my phone and look something up, the only limitation is having cell phone service. I guess the print version of Encyclopedia Britannica is good because you don't need electricity to use it. Wikipedia is also good because it is free. According to their website, Encyclopedia Britannica online costs $70 per year and the print version costs more than $1300.
I just went to Britannica.com to see how the pages are set up. They are very similar to Wikipedia but only part of the page scrolls up and down. This restricts the amount of information the reader can look at at one time. The scrolling is also very jumpy and sometimes not responsive. Wikipedia has a link to each part of the article after the first paragraph, Britannica has a table of contents but it is a drop down menu that is more difficult to see. Overall, Wikipedia is more user friendly.