After I learned about encyclopedia and wikipedia I thought there were pros and cons to each one. A pro of using an encyclopedia would be all the information is all right there and in depth. But I thought a downside to using it would be it may be out dated and they can't be updated like wikipedia can be only. Wikipedia can continually updated when new information is discovered. But a downside/con to wikipedia is that anyone can switch information on the site, yet most of the people that put the information on the site it's because it what they enjoy doing for others or they know a lot of information about the topic they are writing on. Using wikipedia is probably easier for the person trying to publish the information rather than going and making an encyclopedia there would be many more steps to have it be published.
When I did a search for encyclopedia on drugs and alcohol it came up with 3 sources I would be able to possibly use for my topic. I found them by typing in substance abusers along with the word encyclopedia.
When I did a search for E-encyclopedia I was able to find 5 possible sources I might be able to use. They way I went about trying to find E-encyclopedia was clicking on the e-book tab on the library website than from there I clicked on Credo References because it is made to find information through dictionaries, encyclopedias and many more.
After I was able to find an encyclopedia and a wikipedia source on my topic I thought that they would be a good resource to use because an encyclopedia goes very into depth for the information while wikipedia gives me the opportunity to click on other links related to my topic. I would probably use wikipedia more because it's faster, more convenient and I don't have to go look through a very large book. For my generation it is more common to use something on the computer than it would be to go through a large book.
Hi Beth,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post on the pros and cons of encyclopedias and Wikipedia.
Please talk about the encyclopedia and Wikipedia entries that you found on your topic. How did they compare? What source was the traditional encyclopedia entry from? Which entry, based on evidence that we talked about in class (think "book evaluation criteria for academic audiences"), was more appropriate for your research purposes, and why?
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Professor Wexelbaum
Comparing the 2 articles I found, I found it most useful for me to use Wikipedia because it is faster to use, Wikipedia was more current than the encyclopedia, Wikipedia gave me other sources right from the same page. I think that Wikipedia was a more appropriate source for me to use, like I already stated. I think that because I find it easier for me to use i understand it better, I understand the reading style better, It has good information that I think is worthy to use. The encyclopedia entry was from the Encyclopedia of drugs, alcohol, & addictive behavior by Rosalyn Carson-DeWitt, editor in chief.
ReplyDeleteHi Beth,
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to information about drugs and alcohol, the more current information that you can find, the better. If the Wikipedia entry cited scholarly journal articles and government websites to back up their information, even better.
Sincerely,
Professor Wexelbaum