Wikipedia vs. Traditional Encyclopaedias

Wikipedia and Columbia Encyclopaedia are similar in the sense of both being encyclopaedias but they differs in the way and the purpose of how they are used. When I started to browse for articles to compare between Wikipedia and Columbia Encyclopaedia I soon established the fact that neither more recent phenomena nor things regarding popular culture, was likely to be found in the Columbia Encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia on the other hand I could found all of the subjects I browsed for, even lesser known things were to be find, things that were in Columbia Encyclopaedia.

The first thing to notice while comparing the articles is the language. Columbia Encyclopaedia uses an academic tone with short and concise sentences while Wikipedia uses a less formal style. The layout of the articles also differs widely; Columbia Encyclopaedia looks exactly as I imagine it looks in the printed version, in a rather small, space saving font and without paragraphs. Wikipedia divides its articles into sections and has a typical website approach, user friendly and easy to read even when there us large amounts of text.

To compare the content I decided to use articles about the city Uppsala. Although the main points are mentioned in both, the focus on what is to be more important differs. Columbia Encyclopaedia focuses mainly on economical aspects such as manufacturers and important institutions as well as important historical events. Wikipedia on the other hand has its main focus on history, geography and sites of interest, while leaving economy only a few lines.

Wikipedias way of linking to sites within Wikipedia as well as outside it, if the user wants to know more about something, is giving the user an unique opportunity of getting a wider perspective on the subject and also to introduce s/he to related subjects. Being collaboratively written, open for anyone to create and to edit, Wikipedia is an endless source of knowledge compared to a traditional encyclopaedias that, despite being created by scholars, never can compete with the collective knowledge of thousands and yet thousand of writers. Surely, Wkipedia always has the possibility of being incorrect, at least for a while before anyone notices and edits it but that is only human. Mistakes happen and even though the guidelines in Wikipedia try to ensure correctness everything has always two sides. All sources should be cross-referenced and so should definitely Wikipedia be. Wikipedia might not be what we, at least not yet, see as appropriate as a reference in an academic enviroment but when you want to know something without looking it up in a stiff encyclopaedia who might only state static facts, Wikipedia is just right. In the same way as you might turn to your friend to ask something you are thinking about, you can turn to Wikipedia. Only that the risk of someone using Wikipedia not knowing it is much smaller than that your friend does not.

Wikipedia do not only work as a source of information, it is also a place for those who edit articles to discuss, argue and learn new things about their topic of concern. It is a social experience where people share and educate each other on a much less hierarchal way than compared to offline life, where age, sex and education is only a few of many things that matters when commenting on a subject, rather than how much you actually know about it. Wikipedia supports and rely on a belief in people, in their knowledge and trustworthiness. It is a system that does not favour the solely individual, but the community.

Wikipedia vs. traditional encyclopaedias also brings up the question about volunteer based work versions commercial work. Instead of being created for, they are created by and some might argue that without economical interest, people would not feel forced to state accurate facts but I do not agree, I think that derives from a lack of trust in people. There are, of course, plenty of mistakes made in Wikipedia, people might sometimes be too lazy to double-check their information and there will always be people who sabotage. But traditional encyclopaedias are not always 100% accurate despite being written by professionals and they lack the fast editing possibilities as Wikipedia has, if something new would come up regarding a topic. The traditional encyclopaedias are on the other hand acknowledged as a trustworthy source and of course, edited by professionals. None of them are perfect but both fills important functions; what is important is to be aware of the reason of why we use them and how we do it.

About the quote Encyclopaedia Britannica’s entry on encyclopedia:

"A great encyclopedia is inevitably a sign of national maturity and, as such, will pay tribute to the ideals of its country and its times"

Applying that to Wikipediais easily done; exchange encyclopaedia with “wiki’s”, put “world” instead of country and “international” instead of “national” and you will have a sentence that neatly describes how our view of knowledge and information is changing in these times. Collaborative work is gaining respect and how what previous was national matters becomes global. Technology takes down boundaries and the world is today as near (or far) us as the nation used to be.

"A great Wiki is inevitably a sign of international maturity and, as such, will pay tribute to the ideals of the world and its times"