To my mind, the traditional encyclopaedias is a better channel to provide digital knowledge.
The main function of these two different softwares is to provide useful information and knowledge to users so I assume accuracy of information provided is the main criteria to distanguish the strong from the weak. To the best od my belief, traditional encyclopaedias is much stronger in this field.
Since traditional encyclopaedias are catagorised as proprietary that sources can only be changed by owner, which can avoid careless posting of wrong information like in Wikipedia. Wikipedia on the other hand is an open source that is opened to everybody ranging from scholar to illitterate people, in which people can create messages whatever they want. In that case, we cannot guarantee the quality of the content posted so as the user.
On top of that, traditional encyclopaedias have clear and definite owner that he/she is responsible for what messages he/she issues. As a result, administrator tends to be extra careful and pay more attention before action, that can really reduce the possibility of going wrong. However, people are can express their 'beliefs' without giving personal information in Wikipedia which is hard to trace back the message creater. In extreme case it can lure to deliberate dissemination of rumour.
From the view of information searcher, I definitely reckon that traditional one is a more reliable tool to use.
No comments:
Post a Comment