Preview

Website Comparison Wiki

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1145 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Website Comparison Wiki
Non-Other Like Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a well-known website to many internet surfers. The word “wiki,” is defined by Britannica.com as a “site that can be modified or contributed to by users.” With that in mind, there has been great debate over Wikipedia and the information provided on this website regarding its accuracy. Even with knowledge of this debate, internet surfers still continuously use Wikipedia.org for all the knowledge that this website has to offer. As far as comparison on another encyclopedia website, Wikipedia is on top compared to Britannica.com, another website used for information search. There are many websites all over the internet that offer numerous amounts of information, but when it comes down to it, Wikipedia.com offers the greatest deal of information for all searchers. Wikipedia.org is a web-based, free encyclopedia website where its information is mainly written by volunteers since its creation in 2001. It was founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, and was a slowly started project in 2000 called “Nupedia,” before being released in 2001as it is known as today, Wikipedia.org. Britannica is currently headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. They claim to be, “one of the world 's most trusted sources of information on every topic imaginable - from the origins of the universe to current events and everything in between” (Britannica.com). Britannica started off as an 18th century encyclopedia that advanced grew with technology and created a website for searchers that launched in 2002. When first visiting these website’s homepages, both have their own style which includes either simple or complex. First, when visiting Wikipedia.org, the homepage is a simple white and black page that has a simple search bar and also offers a multitude of languages to search in. The other encyclopedia website, Britannica.com, their homepage has a soft blue tone to it but is very cluttered with a lot of advertisement. When comparing the



Cited: “About Us.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011 “Home.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011 “About Us” Wikipedia. Wikipedia.Org Wikipedia, 2011 “Home”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia.Org Wikipedia, 2011

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The author’s purpose is to testify about his experience with Wikipedia and persuade the intended audience that Wikipedia is not a credible or…

    • 893 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    |Wikipedia |Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is an online encyclopedia where that |It is not a validity source. The web site has no peer review and the information can |…

    • 685 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The first encyclopedia was written by professional writers hired by Microsoft, so it can be considered a “for money to work” which represents the extrinsic motivators. The other encyclopedia was written by numerous hobbyists voluntarily which represents an intrinsic motivator. After several years, Wikipedia defeated Microsoft, became the largest and most…

    • 152 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    information. Wikipedia has proven to be too unreliable for a variety of reasons for it to be trusted…

    • 925 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ldr/531

    • 361 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Wikipedia is one of the most sought out information website. Jimmy Wales, founder says this about his website, “Wikipedia is something special…, it is a place we can all go to think, to learn and share our knowledge with others” (Wikipedia, 2012, p1). This resourceful tool has up-to-date news, press releases, and it provides its users with the convenience to various languages. In this paper team C will debate on supporting arguments for Wikipedia and opposing arguments if it is credible and a valid source of information.…

    • 361 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Philip Lau, writer of the essay, “The Limitations of Wikipedia”, is successful in persuading his readers that the webpage Wikipedia should not be used for college level research. In his essay, Philip states that, “Wikipedia can be a beneficial starting point in gaining general information on a subject but users should be wary of incorrect information”. The essayist’s use of examples, facts and quotes are what makes his argument so convincing.…

    • 586 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Inf 103

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Wikipedia has been a successful source of information.Wikipedia does have a wealth of knowledge. I have used it a lot to find facts about different people, places, and books. It is a convenient way to look up information. It is a temporary solution to research. However when you are doing research Wikipedia is not a credible source nor is it recommended by professors. Anyone can post material on Wikipedia as stated in the disclaimer. So this information does not necessarily have to be the most accurate. This information could be old the facts may not…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Jimmy wales

    • 561 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Relevance: According to the research on citations of Wikipedia, Along with the increasing number of citations, another indicator that Wikipedia may be gaining respectability is its citation by well-known scholars. (Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 2008)…

    • 561 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Best Essays

    dsfsdsfs

    • 4483 Words
    • 18 Pages

    Dear Wikipedia readers: We are the small non-profit that runs the #5 website in the world. We have only 175 staff but serve 500 million users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, programs, and staff. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind, a place we can all go to think and learn. To protect our independence, we 'll never run ads. We take no government funds. We survive on donations averaging about $30. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to Wikipedia. Thank you.…

    • 4483 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rector, Lucy Holman. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles, Reference Services Review, Vol. 36 Iss: 1, pp.7 - 22. Retrieved December 19, 2010, from the World Wide Web:…

    • 997 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Wikipedia does not have an apocalyptic view about this because its core audience knows the site very well and it has all the necessary experience to get exactly what they want. The loyal users use internal searches or they head directly to the page they want to see. This somehow works like in the case of the top affiliate networks. People know what they want and where they should go to find it.…

    • 491 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Wikipedia can be beneficial to the academic student as well as the general researching public. Wikipedia covers an immense variety of topics that is continually maintained and updated, relevant, and non-biased in its presentation of information. Wikipedia possess all the qualities a reliable source would have. Wikipedia’s premise is promoting involvement of the general public for inputting information and continually adding into a comprehensive knowledge base.…

    • 795 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Is Wikipedia a Valid Academic Resource? Wikipedia is considered a free encyclopedia that was created by the community that uses it and according to Wikipedia founders, “it is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy”. Is a website that is always changing as is always being improved by its users, many of the changes occurs hourly (Wikipedia: Introduction, 2014).…

    • 1193 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    However, just because it has a lot of information doesn’t mean that it is all good information. Academic writing is a very accurate type of writing that can require many unbiased, reliable, credible, and relevant sources. I do not think all Wikipedia articles are held to these standards and so, I do not believe Wikipedia is an acceptable source for academic writing. Wikipedia is largely supposed to be an unbiased source by their own standards. However, not all articles are monitored enough to keep people’s biases from sticking through their writing.…

    • 1369 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Wikipedia Debatee

    • 960 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The topic of discussion in week two learning team A was a debate of if Wikipedia was a creditable and valid source of information. The debate consisted of the team member’s previous experience using Wikipedia for research purposes and the general overview of its information. My take on the matter and still is that Wikipedia is not considered a creditable or valid source of information. By further reading into the paper, facts and information are is provided as to why an individual should not considered Wikipedia as creditable or a valid source of information.…

    • 960 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics