User:LunarPrincess/sandbox

Article 1: Global Catastrophic Risks
Citation: "Global catastrophic risks." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Sep. 2014. Web. 14 Sep. 2014.

I chose this article because it is about a topic that, while misrepresented in popular media, is extremely important. The scope of global catastrophic risks, particularly those that could result in human extinction, is such that even minor reductions in their probability are valuable.

Prevention methods here could include better monitoring of strong pandemics, tracking threatening celestial objects, advocating for nuclear non-proliferation, researching possible risks and how to mitigate them, etc.

The biggest issue of this goal in practice is that it is not yet clear what the best way to reduce risks is. Researching risks and defenses on the topic of synthetic biology, for example, could lead to accidentally discovering a way to use synthetic biology as a very dangerous weapon. Some of the interventions are less risky, though.

Using the standards for evaluating Wikipedia articles, I find the following:

The lead section is understandable. I can hardly think of a better way to explain this issue than the overview does. It explains what global catastrophic risks are and how they differ from existential risks. It also provides some examples of possible risks (such as super volcanoes, nuclear war, and bioterrorism).

It concludes with a mention of the problem of possible bias in estimating risk, as well as the issues about analyzing the probability something that has never happened before (human extinction). 5/5

The structure is clear. The article includes appropriate images and diagrams. The index is well-made, dividing possible risks by whether they are anthropogenic (caused by humans) or not. It also includes a short, possibly too short, section on discredited scenarios as well as a section on prevention and organizations working on the issue.

The probability of risk, moral importance, and classifications also get sections with good detail. 5/5

The aspects of the topic are balanced well. I happen to read a lot about this topic and feel like the sources of risk all get good coverage proportional to how much has been written on them, among other things. The few sections that are a bit short, as well as many others, do include links to more on-topic articles. For example, the “Warfare and Mass Destruction” part starts with a link to Wikipedia’s article on nuclear holocaust. So all topics seem to get appropriate coverage. 4/5

Coverage is neutral. Fortunately, this is not a very controversial topic. Pretty much anyone acknowledges that there is at least some issues that could potentially be catastrophic or even end humanity. However, there are some parts that not everyone would agree with. For example, the estimation of near-term human extinction due to super-intelligent AI or molecular nanotechnology is at 5% (each) according to this article. The actual risks for both of those are still controversial and extremely difficult to guess. The source is reliable, however.

On top of that, the global warming section mentions “Runaway Climate Change”. Global warming as a whole is still controversial despite being accepted by nearly all the experts, but the Runaway Climate Change hypothesis –which claims feedback loops caused by greenhouse gasses could turn Earth unbearably hot and end human life on it- is especially controversial and seems to be considered extremely unlikely by some of the authorities, such as the IPCC. It is worth mentioning that particular risk in the article, it just seemed like the controversy of it was ignored. 4/5

References to reliable sources. The references include Nick Bostrom, an authority in the field, the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, the U.S. Congress review on space threats, Stephen Hawking, and etc. These sources are formidable and many of them are authoritative on this field. 5/5

The article has no waning banner at the top. Only a suggestion to be merged with the Human Extinction article. No ongoing disputes. 4/5

No language problems in the lead section. I found it to be understandable, as already stated. 5/5

The language does not contain unsourced opinions or value statements. Even the controversial parts mentioned above are worded so as to avoid making definite judgments, simply stating that the hypotheses exist and providing information on them. The opinions and ideas described in the article are well-sourced. 5/5

The article refers to unnamed groups of people. This is something I did notice, though even when the people are unnamed in the article, the comments and ideas are still sourced so it is easy to find out who it is that all the “some” or “many” refer to. 3/5

No aspects of the topic seem to be missing. I found it to be pretty complete. The only thing missing is probably some of the discredited ideas but they’re probably just using a different criteria to judge those than I am. 5/5

No sections seem overly long for their relevance. Everything seems pretty well-balanced. 5/5

The article has many references or sources. The article cites 122 sources -many of which are very good- and includes references, further reading, and relevant external links. 5/5

Comparison: Encyclopedia Britannica
I can’t seem to find an article on the subject as a whole, only individual articles about topics within the subject, such as the one on Earth Impact Hazards ("Earth impact hazard." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 14 Sep. 2014.)

Looking at the article itself, I am actually baffled that teachers keep complaining about students who trust Wikipedia. It seems to be accepted as being at least as accurate as other encyclopaedias and is also usually very quick to correct bad edits and demands high standards for sources and information quality.

I can’t even see any external sources in this other encyclopaedia at all. The references and web links tabs are empty. I actually think part of the anti-Wikipedia sentiment comes from underestimating the will of experts to contribute and underestimating the ability of common but right-minded people to research and contribute, not because Wikipedia actually is unreliable.

Article 2: The Saturn V Rocket
Citation: "Saturn V." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 4 Sep. 2014. Web. 15 Sep. 2014.

I decided to pick something more specific and made sure Encyclopedia Britannica did have an article on the same subject, that was probably my main motivation but this is also something I am very passionate about.

Space rockets are a very inspiring thing for me. They are extremely complicated, extremely powerful machines where even minor mistakes could ruin the whole operation if excellent failsafe measures are not in place.

Space rockets symbolize an attempt at perfection in this way. But going deeper than that, the very challenge of assembling a machine that truly can leave our orbit safely, and especially if it manages to land on a moving target far away, says a lot about the power of humans and their intelligence.

Landing on the moon is something a lot of people these days don’t think much about. But once you recognize how many things had to be thought up, developed, tested and properly implemented to make it happen it truly stands out as an achievement. Humans cannot survive in the vacuum of space, and yet human footprints mark the moon. If that doesn’t tell you about how amazing and powerful humans can be I don’t know what else would convince you (actually, I do have many other examples.)

The lead section is understandable. This article’s lead section does describe what the Saturn V is and why it is important. It only loses points because it involves a bit of relevant jargon that not everyone would be familiar with, but does include links that explain it. 4/5

The structure is clear. The index includes such things as the development, technology involved, comparisons to other rockets, the list of Saturn V vehicles and launches, and more. The Images, tables and graphs are all appropriate and good. 5/5

The aspects of the topic are balanced well. My only complaint is that the listing of vehicles and launches, while complete, has been summarized very thoroughly. I think it could do with more information there. 4/5

Coverage is neutral. Again, this is a very non-controversial article that is mostly about technical and historical information. The minefield that is politics is fortunately avoided for the most part. 5/5

The sources are reliable. Fittingly, a good deal of the references are to NASA and the Encyclopedia Astronautica. 5/5

The article has no warning banner at the top. 5/5

No language problems in the lead section. 5/5

Little to no unsourced opinions and value statements. 5/5

Little to no references to unnamed groups of people. 5/5

No aspects of the topic seem to be missing. 5/5

No sections seem overly long for their relevance. 5/5

The article has a good amount of references. 51 sources listed, as well as a good variety of external links. 5/5

Comparison: Encyclopedia Britannica
"Saturn." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 17 Sep. 2014.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article on this topic is only two (huge) paragraphs in size, and talks of Saturn-type vehicles as a whole instead of just the Saturn V. The article seems to be limited to the physical capabilities of the rockets, and gives only a summary of their launches and significance. A good deal of the second paragraph is just plain physics.

Article 3: Dungeons and Dragons
Citation: "Dungeons & Dragons." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 9 Sep. 2014. Web. 18 Sep. 2014.

I picked this one just because it is an interest of mine, and I confirmed Encyclopedia Britannica did have an article on it too. Dungeons and Dragons is a tabletop role-playing game with a reputation for being very dorky. It can be about anything the playing group decides but it’s usually a medieval fantasy game where dice rolls, math, and role-playing decide how the story goes. It is basically a combination of acting, playing, and story-telling.

The lead section is understandable. The only bad thing with it is that it is a bit long, but it does a good job of explaining what D&D is, its origin, and that it is the best-known, best-selling game of its kind. 4/5

The structure is clear. The article talks about D&D in the order of: game mechanics, history, influence, controversy, related products and popular culture references to it. This all seems like the standard order and is all well-ordered and structured. 5/5

The aspects of the topic are balanced well. They seem alright to me, and sections in general include links to their own articles to prevent any of them from becoming too long. 5/5

Coverage is neutral. There is some talk about how religious groups tried to ban the game, but does say they were found to be wrong, which is pretty much what everyone seems to agree on now, but I don’t know if that’s a good enough justification.. 4/5

References to reliable sources. A good deal of the sources are the game manuals and the people who wrote them. This is good for matters of explaining the game and its history.

However, the sources on the controversy seem to be one-sided. Presumably the articles from the opposing point of view are on the page for controversies themselves but this is still something that I feel should have been included. 3/5

No warning banner at the top. 5/5

No language problems in the lead section. 4/5

No unsourced opinions or value statements. Everything is sourced. 5/5

No unnamed groups of people. Any comments are attributed to someone. 5/5

No aspects of the topic seem to be missing. 5/5

Everything is properly proportional. 5/5

Over 150 strong references. 5/5

Comparison: Encyclopedia Britannica
Again, Encyclopedia Britannica’s article ("Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 18 Sep. 2014.) is only two paragraphs plus a line. It has only a short summary of its origin and story, and a decent summary of the rules. There is not really much else besides that, though. Not even a passing mention of the controversy, for one. Why is Encyclopedia Britannica so lacking compared to Wikipedia? Why do people insist that it is better somehow?

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Introduction
For this assignment, I will be comparing two encyclopedia articles about Dungeons and Dragons. The first article will be from Wikipedia, the second from Encyclopedia Britannica.

As I explained in assignment 1, the Wikipedia article about Dungeons and Dragons was understandable, well-balanced, pretty neutral, and abundantly sourced. It does a good job in explaining what the game is like, as well as its history and influence.

In contrast, the article on Encyclopedia Britannica (which seems to have changed its layout a bit since last time) is very short and very basic. It has a simple description of the game, an incomplete description of its history, and seemingly no sources. The bibliography tab for the article was empty (though at least the websites tab has a link to the official D&D site).

If we observe these differences one at a time, they become even more visible. Let’s do a quick review of the lead section and headings in Wikipedia’s article and measure them against Encyclopedia Britannica’s.

Section Review
First, the lead sections: At the time of writing, Wikipedia’s lead section is four large paragraphs in size. It summarizes the game’s origin, gameplay, influence, role in the industry, and controversies.

Encyclopedia Britannica only has about two paragraphs plus one sentence, though the second paragraph is huge. It explains the rules in some more detail than Wikipedia’s lead section does (but much less completely than Wikipedia’s “Play Overview” section). Encyclopedia Britannica also misses most of the historical and economic information that Wikipedia’s lead section provides.

Next, let’s compare Wikipedia’s “Play Overview” section with Britannica’s information on how to play the game.

Wikipedia explains the following information over many paragraphs:


 * The game is typically played indoors.
 * Each player normally controls one character, an individual in a fictional setting.
 * The players are usually working as a team (or “party”) composed of characters with different specializations and areas of expertise.
 * Players interact with each other and with the fictional setting through their characters, whom they role-play as.
 * Games are run by a special player called the “Dungeon Master”, who controls the setting and the non-player characters (such as monsters). The DM can either follow the extensive published rules, or deviate from them if they think it will improve the game.
 * The players can influence the outcome of adventures and events through the actions of their characters.
 * Players often create the characters they role-play, choosing a species, alignment, abilities, and more.
 * Players often use various kinds of dice and figurines to resolve actions and aid in visualization, respectively.
 * And so on…

The amount and quality of information provided on this is extremely good and there is even a link for a specialized article solely about the Dungeons and Dragons gameplay, among other things.

How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare? This quote is all they have on it :

''“The game is set in a medieval fantasy world in which multiple players form a group that is led through an adventure by one player who assumes the role of the storyteller, or Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master makes up story events or chooses them from one of the published adventures, to which the players may respond in different manners to create a unique gaming experience. The other players each choose a race (human, elf, dwarf, halfling), a class (e.g., Fighter, Rogue, Wizard), and skills for their character, and they apportion a small number of points to different attributes (Constitution, Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) that determine how effective a character is in performing various actions. As actions are performed successfully, points are gained to the corresponding attributes. Most complex actions have some probability of failing, which is determined by rolling one or more of the game’s polygonal dice (4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, 12-, and 20-sided). Often players use a sheet marked with a grid and miniature figurines to represent their characters’ movements.”''

One thing I notice from the above quote that I can contradict based on my own experience (though the official manuals also back me up ) is that successfully performing actions does not grant points in the corresponding attributes, at least not in any version I know of.

Instead, successfully performing some kinds of actions can give a character experience points, which are used to level up once enough have been accumulated. Leveling up improves characters in various ways, but it doesn’t always lead to increases in attributes, which are rather difficult to permanently increase in any significant way.

Next comes the game history. Wikipedia has five sub-sections under their “Game History” heading, along with multiple links to more specialized articles on the subjects (for example, one to their article on D&D controversies and one to their article on D&D editions). Wikipedia’s information on the subject is, once again, extremely comprehensive.

Encyclopedia Britannica merely notes the year of the first publishing (1974, by TSR) and later acquisition by Wizards of the Coast in 1997. Those are pretty much the only events noted.

I could probably keep going for just a bit longer, but Encyclopedia Britannica doesn’t actually have much besides what I already reviewed. That quote from their article is nearly the entire thing.

Worst of all, the bibliography tab in Britannica’s article is empty, as previously mentioned. Instead, Wikipedia has a wealth of sources such as Gary Gigax (one of the original creators of the game), Monte Cook (D&D designer who contributed to the core rulebooks), and Wizards of the Coast (official publishers).

The list of references and further reading in D&D does contain quite a few reviewers and articles that I am not familiar with (from sources such as Forbes and CNN ), but that is mostly because I am not the type who cares about reviews and such. The information seems right either way.

Of all the faults in the Encyclopedia Britannica article, I’d say this is the most shocking. It is not like there was much to source to begin with, but how did an article that completely lacks bibliography even get approved?

The primary contributor on Encyclopedia Britannica, William L. Hosch, has no biographical information listed on his profile, so I don’t know what his qualifications are.

Unfortunately, I can’t see much about Wikipedia’s contributors either. Most of them don’t seem put much in their profiles, and there’s a few edits made from IP addresses too. Both articles are flawed when it comes to verifying the expertise of the editors, though at least Wikipedia has sources.

What really impressed me about the Wikipedia article is that it is FA-Class, meaning it was featured in the main page (on September 14, 2007) and rated as one of the best articles on the site. It has also been reviewed by the editorial team.

I can see why it would get such recognition, too. Comparing the two articles doesn’t even seem fair because Wikipedia is just so far ahead in quality and content.