Wikipedia as Smart as Brittanica!

[acsguitar]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/1 ... index.html

[RugbyD]

While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not covered in Britannica.

Britannica is better for having not covered this subject.

[Coppermine]

In case some of you don't know, my girlfriend is a librarian. And no, she isn't 60 years old...

Anyway, I love wikipedia... it's perfect for looking up obscure things and for quickly settling arguments. I feel like the information there is extremely comprehensive and it does provide insight on topics that you'd never see in Britannica. While the EB is still the single greatest encylopedic resource available, Wikipedia is free and awesome.

My girlfriend on the other hand feels she has a librarian-moral responsibility that a public-peer reviewed resource is going to be inaccurate. When we argue over something obscure, like Mike the headless chicken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_headless_chicken), wikipedia is my one-stop resource for settling arguments. While she always likes to point out that wikipedia is inaccurate, I have proven her wrong in those statements every time.

Now, she uses (reluctantly) wikipedia for casual reference, but still balks at the prospect of using it as a legitimate source of research. While I agree with that, I could browse wikipedia for hours, looking up the common to the obscure for hours without having to drop $1600 for the Encylcopeadia Britannica.

I will be sure to show this article to her and follow it with a resounding "In yo face librarian!"

Also, I'm almost done reading "The Know-It All" by Esquire editor A.J. Jacobs. The books is great and is subtitled "One man's humble quest to be the smartest person in the world." The book is about him reading the entire Encylcopeadia Britannica, micro and macro. It's hilarious and well written, using EB topic entries instead of chapter numbers.

I highly recommend it if you're looking for something entertaining to read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743250621/qid=1134664235/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9773691-9355358?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[acsguitar]

In case some of you don't know, my girlfriend is a librarian. And no, she isn't 60 years old...

Anyway, I love wikipedia... it's perfect for looking up obscure things and for quickly settling arguments. I feel like the information there is extremely comprehensive and it does provide insight on topics that you'd never see in Britannica. While the EB is still the single greatest encylopedic resource available, Wikipedia is free and awesome.

My girlfriend on the other hand feels she has a librarian-moral responsibility that a public-peer reviewed resource is going to be inaccurate. When we argue over something obscure, like Mike the headless chicken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_headless_chicken), wikipedia is my one-stop resource for settling arguments. While she always likes to point out that wikipedia is inaccurate, I have proven her wrong in those statements every time.

Now, she uses (reluctantly) wikipedia for casual reference, but still balks at the prospect of using it as a legitimate source of research. While I agree with that, I could browse wikipedia for hours, looking up the common to the obscure for hours without having to drop $1600 for the Encylcopeadia Britannica.

I will be sure to show this article to her and follow it with a resounding "In yo face librarian!"

Also, I'm almost done reading "The Know-It All" by Esquire editor A.J. Jacobs. The books is great and is subtitled "One man's humble quest to be the smartest person in the world." The book is about him reading the entire Encylcopeadia Britannica, micro and macro. It's hilarious and well written, using EB topic entries instead of chapter numbers.

I highly recommend it if you're looking for something entertaining to read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743250621/qid=1134664235/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9773691-9355358?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Note to self fantasize about coppermine's hot librarian girlfriend tonight.

[ironman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... nickname#T

I love Wikipedia, its been beneficial in my grass roots effort to get everyone to refer to Matt Murton as Thunder Matt Murton.

[BaseballFann0008]

wikipedia

[LooseCannon]

I love Wikipedia a lot, I like the layout of the writing and the web site, but it's definitely proven that Wikipedia can be innaccurate...



http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5993894.html

[so0perspam]

Wikipedia is awesome. Great resource ...

[dannyolbb]

I can't get to most of the web at work because they have an extremely strict monitoring program and a human checks once a week to see that we're not wasting time while at work. Wikipedia saves me. I spend about an hour reading there every day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_c ... e_Simpsons

[Red Stripe]

Wikipedia is a great site, I always visit it every once in a while to just look up odd things.