just use google????

[Happy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-1...uction/3888402

why subscribe to the online version when you have google and wikipedia ? lol

end of a very long era though

[GIGS20]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-1...uction/3888402

why subscribe to the online version when you have google and wikipedia ? lol

end of a very long era though

As an educator in an educational institution, I feel I have the right to respond.

Britannica represents an important aspect of our research landscape. As a content aggregator (in much the same way as wikipedia is) it provides a good, quick overview of a topic in a romat that is readable and reliable. Unlike Wikipedia, Britannica is a tertiary source of information, where Wikipedia is, at best Quaternary. When writing acaedemically, this distinction is important.....and it's one that is being devalued in schools today. It continues to be important WHO says something is so, because certain people have facts to back up their assertations, some don't.

In the world of wikipedia, it is possible for inaccurate information to remain, simply as a matter of social consequence. For example, If enough people want to make it happen, they could generate a page on Wikipedia to say that the sky is pink....it would be corrected fairly quickly, usually by some well meaning individual who sees the importance of such a site.....but let's assume that the pink sky group are committed and dedicated enough to have people checking the pink sky entry every minute of every day. The Pink sky activists change the content back to suit their story every time the facts are corrected, so that, more often than not, Wikipedia says the sky is pink. Using the assumption that Wikipedia, through the power of collective intelligence is a reliable source of information a student uses the pink sky information in an assessment....does it make the sky pink....NO!

The example above is chosen specifically to highlight a point, and you will all refute it on the grounds of common sense, but how does this go for points that are under dispute in current society........what does Wikipedia say when political figures engage teams to manage their profile on such media....how much can it be trusted.

Well Britannica (and other commercial information portals) are companies, which can be sued.....there is a stronger reasons to trust them than a wikipedia, because there is no legal procedure to redress misinformation.

Is Britannica more accurate than wikipedia...I don't know, but is it more trustworthy....yes, is it the silver bullet in terms of academic research, certainly not......Primary sources are!

[GIGS20]

Wow, scratch a nerve much?

[Happy]

i don't know whether to smote or praise hahahaha

[Darren]

I have a set of encyclopaedia Britannica at home (both the full and kiddie version) - never looked in them yet

[jono]

i have it on my computer

[Lonzy]

I have the 1995 Edition at home (with the kiddies version), when doing assignments in high school they were always my first point of reference. Even now I still use them for a brief overview of something I am studying at Uni, though because I am studying science much of the information is out dated. Having said that it is still interesting to see how things have changed!

I suppose it'll save some trees though...

[GIGS20]

i don't know whether to smote or praise hahahaha

Yeah sorry about that.......one of those random rant things I guess!

[Happy]

lol .. no it is an interesting point you make though ... about the pink sky .. i guess looking at the world book what you read is "at the time" correct ( leaving allowances for our understanding of things to improve and change ) however with wikipedia and google, i think it makes you search and research a bit more to ensure what you are reading "is the truth", but allows you to have access to a much larger database of information that the world book could ever do (the print version).

Ultimately what is written needs to be researched more than just once!

[blueandblack]

[GIGS20]

lol .. no it is an interesting point you make though ... about the pink sky .. i guess looking at the world book what you read is "at the time" correct ( leaving allowances for our understanding of things to improve and change ) however with wikipedia and google, i think it makes you search and research a bit more to ensure what you are reading "is the truth", but allows you to have access to a much larger database of information that the world book could ever do (the print version).

Ultimately what is written needs to be researched more than just once!

This is my field, I get pretty fired up about it. Too many people accept information from the Internet without checking the source for accuracy.

How many websites have we found belonging to ranting nutcases? Too often that sort of stuff makes it into assignments that I have to mark

[brokendown gunfighter]

TWF a classic example,GIGS20

[Elf1]

I used to be married so encyclopaedia Britannica were redundant, she new everything

[brokendown gunfighter]

I used to be married so encyclopaedia Britannica were redundant, she new everything

What,more than rumour monger?

[shasta]

Thast's why I sold mine, Elf.