User:Acnicolov/sandbox

More Coding
Italics Bold Digital Library

http://www.britannica.com/

http://www.algonquincollege.com/its/index.htm (Connect From Home)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Courses/LIB2002_Reference_I_(Helena_Merriam)/Students

Process
The topics I've chosen are based on some of my interests: two of my favourite pop culture icons, a historical landmark of a country I would like to visit, and the city in which I was born.

The search process was a fairly simple one. Through this course, I have been introduced to new and free sources for research. I come from a time of hard-copy books for use in school. The internet was less of a necessity back then, also it had fewer options than it has now.

I found the Smithsonian Encyclopedia to be more of an educational tool: instead of simply stating facts and figures, it read more like a story or a tale. The Canadian Encyclopedia seems to be more of a database of Canadiana rather than a powerful reference tool. The specialized sources (the books about the WWE and Queen (band)) I found to be the most enjoyable to read: they gave a deeper scope into their subject matter. They are image-heavy, and written by well-rounded experts in their respective fields (though isn't that the assumption of any article?). However, they may not be a reliable source for some content because of possible bias.

I overall prefer Wikipedia as a format, and for ease of use. It is a very user-friendly. It's convenient how it is divided into subheadings, and filled with internal links. Some articles are also more thorough than ones you would find on an official source. It seems that other sources that are online and free are more of a summary, or a short answer version to a question. Wikipedia may be a free range for information, but it's the easiest to access, it's free, and it will always be under the watchful eye of people with honesty and integrity.

Wikipedia Article: Egyptian Pyramids
The Wikipedia article about Egyptian pyramids defines and explains the history of pyramids and their construction. It opens with what may answer some frequently asked questions. First, it gives a basic definition of a what a pyramid is. It notes the amount of pyramids found as of this century. It also pinpoints which is oldest, which pyramids are most notable, and how many people it may have taken to build one. The article continues into the historical development of the pyramids: how and why construction changed over time, and when construction was at its peak. The next focus is spirituality, and what features of a pyramid represent different beliefs. The thirteen sites of the pyramids are revealed, as well as statistics like amount of, and location of the pyramids. Finally, a timeline in which the pyramids were built is given in a chart.

Smithsonian Article: The Egyptian Pyramid
The Smithsonian article (http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/pyramid.htm) describes the basic origins, composition and trends of pyramids in Egypt. It gives a little more insight into the evolution of pyramid structures. It describes how they were built, and from what materials. It even details the dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, and additional information about what makes Giza famous. The article mentions what tools and practices may have been used in construction. It briefly touches upon how astronomy was an important part of the process, with regards to the cardinal points of the pyramids.

Comparison and Contrast
Comparisons of the Wikipedia and Smithsonian articles are plain to see. First of all, the Smithsonian article has more written content. The Wikipedia article contains photos, a map, a diagram, and even some hieroglyphs. The photos are straightforward, as well - they are clearly captioned. The Smithsonian article also contains a slideshow of photographs, but the captions are hidden and are not formatted for a home computer.

Both articles mention "mastabas," which are the earliest forms of pyramids reserved for Egyptian dignitaries. Both articles also credit the architect Imhotep as the inventor. The Smithsonian article goes into detail about how mastabas were built - this allows the reader to visualize what sets them apart from the pyramids we can identify.

The Wikipedia article gives a closer look into the Egyptian faith. Like the Smithsonian, it describes the mastabas, but mainly for their spiritual symbolism: if tombs are stacked in descending sizes, it would simulate a staircase to the heavens. Many ideas for the tombs were in the name of beliefs regarding the afterlife. Egyptians associated sunset with the realm of the dead; therefore, the pyramids were all built to the west of the Nile. The Smithsonian makes no mention of these religious connotations, as its article focusses on the pyramids as historical landmarks, not spiritual ones.

References, Contributors and Further Reading
The Wikipedia article is very helpful, because it opens the reader up to further reading in an easily accessible way. It names all of the sites of the pyramids and links you to each respective article. The Smithsonian provides a very extensive list for further reading from academic and historical resources. This is appropriate because the Smithsonian is an institution of research, and should encourage and assist in doing so. In terms of credentials, the Smithsonian has the upper hand. Though, most the sources listed are about ancient Egypt in general, which may make it hard to refine a search.

Article Assessments
The topic of Egyptian pyramids can be one of two things: a simple explanation of ancient ruins, or a fascinating tale of social status and belief. The Smithsonian encapsulates the former suggestion, where Wikipedia covers the latter. If I wanted to read about the Egyptian pyramids for pleasure, I would lean towards Wikipedia, because the site is usually good for showing you a topic from all sides. The Smithsonian is surely an excellent source for academic purposes, as it has a concentration on statistics and history. Beliefs and myths can get mangled over time, so that is what makes the Smithsonian a reliable encyclopedia: it omits these things in favour of facts and figures. That being said, the Smithsonian perhaps could have mentioned pyramid sites other than Giza.

The Smithsonian article is seven years old. It would fail to mention the updated amount of pyramids have have been discovered in Egypt, as mentioned in Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia still required additional citations for verification as of 2009. Its authors may benefit from the bibliography of the Smithsonian! I also found it rather charming that the Smithsonian article is available in Braille and audio cassette. If they are still using audio cassettes, perhaps they need to update themselves?

The Smithsonian Encyclopedia is a source, not the source. I wouldn't classify its article as a stub, because it does go into well-rounded detail. Also, they show you how to find what they hadn't covered themselves. That is a terrific launchpad, and could be very useful for students. "Research for Dummies," if you will. It seems as though Wikipedia is more about an independent quest for knowledge. It's also easy to get off-topic with Wikipedia because of all of the corresponding links throughout the article. On the other hand, this open-door style of learning can truly broaden the mind.

Resources
"Dating the Pyramids." Archaeology. The Archaeological Institute of America, n.d.  Web. 1 Nov 2012.

"The Egyptian Pyramid." Encyclopedia Smithsonian. Smithsonian, Feb. 2005. Web. 31 Oct 2012.

"Egyptian Pyramids." The British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum, n.d.  Web. 1 Nov 2012.

"Egyptian Pyramids." History. A&E Communications, n.d. Web. 1 November 2012.

Fein, Judith. "Maya and Egyptian Pyramids: A Hidden Connection?" Psychology Today. Sussex Directories Inc., 31 Oct 2011. 1 Nov 2012.

Freudenrich, Craig. "How Pyramids Work." How Stuff Works. Discovery Communications, 30 Aug 2007. Web. 1 November 2012.

Hoffman, Carl. "Pyramids at Giza." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 1 November 2012.

Jackson, Kevin. "A Short History of Pyramidology." BBC History. BBC, 17 Feb 2011. Web. 1 Nov 2012.

Lorenzi, Rossella. "Lost Egyptian Pyramids Found?" Discovery News. Discovery Communications, 10 Aug 2012. Web. 1 November 2012.

"Pyramid." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2012.

Wall, Tim. "Climate Change Killed Egypt's Pyramid Builders." Discovery News. Discovery Communications, 28 Aug 2012. Web. 1 Nov 2012.