User:Evan96779/sandbox

a word form
Comparing Qualities The accuracy in wikipedia can vary depending on the article. If it is rated high, then It would probably be a trusted source. My article, piracy, is rated at high importance B-class work. The content on wikipedia seems like its trusted and accurate, but how can I tell if its from solid sources? Their really is no way of figuring out weather my article of piracy is accurate or not. The wikipedia article has plenty of information put together by a number of wikipedians, but people do make mistakes. The only true flaw for my article on piracy is that it is hard to read and comprehend. It is hard to comprehend this article because every other sentence is written by some one else. To read and actually understand a paragraph that is written by various people can be challenging to fully comprehend. It makes reading a lot easier when just one author is writing and just putting his own research and thoughts on an article. The one thing I can agree on both the encyclopedia and the wikipedia article is their content on the history of piracy is very resourceful. The wiki-article has different entries about the history of piracy on six regions of the world. Even though there is plenty of information on the history of piracy on Wikipedia, much of it can not be trusted because citations are hard to come by in the text.

The encyclopedia sources can be very trusted. Many of the books come from different universities all around the world and the rest of them are from books. On wikipedia, there are over 130 internet sources, and only nine references to books in the article. Whereas the encyclopedia has over 16 scholarly sources. In wikipedia's “identifying reliable sources”  the page states that there is a big difference in a reliable source. The difference between an article from a university differs from a bias website about a specific kind of pirating. Wikipedia is contradicting itself when it states that because most of the wikipedia article on piracy is fluff. The other argument is telling weather or not the online encyclopedia has sources that have taken one side of the topic. Bias article may have good information but it is not right.

Wikipedia's piracy article has a very diverse writing style, it is somewhat hard to comprehend but there is plenty of information on piracy. Because the piracy article lacks major details, it is hard for the reader to actually engage in the article. This makes this wikipedia article flawed with mistakes and the biggest starting with sources. One of the good things about this article is that it is in basic chronological order. This order is good because the reader can find what their looking for upon researching.