User:Mfria/sandbox

Assignment 1
The following is an initial research assignment on the differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias. To begin with three articles from Wikipedia will be listed followed by the same items in a traditional encyclopedia. Following that there will be a brief discussion on the research process, followed by initial thoughts on the differences and similarities between the Wikipedia articles and the encyclopedia articles.

Wikipedia Articles
"Notre Dame de Paris." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 19 Sep. 2013. Web. 23 Sep. 2013. 

"Westminster Abbey." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 15 Sep. 2013. Web. 23 Sep. 2013. 

"Sagrada Família." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 20 Sep. 2013. Web. 23 Sep. 2013. 

Encyclopedia Articles
“Notre-Dame de Paris." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 23 Sep. 2013. .

"Westminster Abbey." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 23 Sep. 2013. .

"Antoni Gaudí." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 28 Sep. 2013. .

Wikipedia Articles
For the Wikipedia articles chosen, it is clear to see that they share some commonalities. Notre Dame de Paris, Westminster Abbey, and the Sagrada Familia are all religious buildings that are known around the world and are famous for their architecture and for historical events that have taken place at them. I chose these because I have visited all of them and I truly enjoy learning about history and religious studies and all of these places are rich with both.

The search process was quite simple. I started off searching for entries on famous monarchs, but I found that the Wikipedia pages were quite long and had a lot of detail which might be too exhaustive for this assignment. Instead I went with religious buildings because they have clear histories, are easy to describe, and require less information then the details of the life of a monarch. I conducted all of my searches using the Wikipedia search bar. Each search brought me right to the Wikipedia article I was looking for.

Encyclopedia Articles
The first encyclopedia that was searched was the Encyclopedia Britannica Online. All the searches were done using the search bar found at the top of the homepage. Each search brought me to a list of entries that all had a connection with the initial search term. In the case of Notre Dame de Paris and Westminster Abbey the first result was the entry I was looking for. It was proven more difficult to find Sagrada Familia. When I conducted the search in the Encyclopedia Britannica Online the first result for Sagrada Familia was Antonio Gaudi, the architect of the church. There was no entry for the church itself.

I then decided to search other encyclopedias. The first one I searched was the "Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia", my search lead to zero results and only suggestions on different search terms. I then tried the "Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia" and still yielded zero results. I then searched www.encyclopedia.com hoping that since it did a discovery layer search I might be able to find something. I did get results with this one, but only of entries related to it such as Barcelona (the city in Spain where the Sagrada Familia is located). However, it did find newspaper articles related to the Sagrada Familia. I decided to stop my search here, based on the results I decided I would need an encyclopedia specific to architecture or an encyclopedia of Barcelona or Spain in order to find an entry on the Sagrada Familia.

Difference Between Wikipedia and Other Encyclopedias
The main differences noticed between the Wikipedia and the other encyclopedias are: the search process, the content and style of the articles, and findability. The following will discuss these three areas.

Searching Wikipedia and the other encyclopedias was quite similar. For both all one has to do is enter in a keyword in the search bar and hit search. What differs is the results page. Whereas Wikipedia brings you straight to the page of your keyword search, the other encyclopedias bring you to a list of entries that are related to the keyword search and from there one selects the entry they want.

For the content and style of the articles there are quite a few differences and a few similarities. A first difference is that the Wikipedia entries are longer and more detailed than the other encyclopedia articles. They have a table of contents, headings, and subheadings, whereas the other encyclopedia articles have a single heading and do more of a summary of the item instead of a full detailed description of the item. Another difference is that the Wikipedia articles have references as to where the information in the article was found. The other encyclopedias do not list references. This difference and the first difference listed show the major difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias: Wikipedia articles resemble research papers that not only summarize the item, but give a history, description, and almost any information available on the item and includes citations and references, whereas the other encyclopedia entries are factual summaries of the item instead of a full detailed article on the item. It should be noted that although other encyclopedias do not have references at the bottom of the article it does list other articles where the item is listed for people who might be interested in different aspects of the item.

A final major difference is the extra content found on the Wikipedia pages compared to the other encyclopedia. On top of the references, the Wikipedia pages also have discussion sections where editors discuss the article, one can see the history of the article, there is a quick fact table on the right, there are language options, there is a toolbox in order to export the article, and one can make edits to the entry. The traditional encyclopedias consulted had none of these features.

There are two main similarities between the Wikipedia page content and the other encyclopedias. The first similarity is that both have in text links to other entries. For example in the Notre Dame de Paris article in both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica when they mention that the monument is found on l’Île de la Cité, Île de la Cité is bolded and linked to the entry on it. The second similarity is that both have images of the item being discussed.

Finally, there is a difference in terms of findability. With Wikipedia it was easy to find the three items that were searched. With the traditional encyclopedias Notre Dame de Paris and Westminster’s Abbey were easy to find, but there was a lot of trouble finding Sagrada Familia. A reason for this could be that the first two are old monuments with extended histories whereas the Sagrada Familia is a newer monument with a shorter history and is known more because of the architect who made it ( Antonio Gaudi ).

Concluding Thoughts
Initial thoughts to the differences and similarities between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias is that Wikipedia articles are a lot more detailed and appear more as research papers on the topic compared to traditional encyclopedias which are factual descriptions of the item. In terms of the value of the information, even though Wikipedia may have entries that traditional encyclopedias do not always have, because of the style of the content (the research paper feel, the sourcing, and the peer edits) in Wikipedia the content could be met with more scrutiny and verification of sources whereas traditional encyclopedias come with the idea that the information has been checked by professionals and the content is factual and already verified.

Assignment 2
The following is a comparison between a Wikipedia article on Notre Dame de Paris and an Encyclopedia Britannica article on the same topic. The comparison will begin by a summary of each article, followed by a content comparison, a contributor and source comparison, an assessment of the articles, and finally, supplement sources on the topic will be provided.

Wikipedia Article Summary
Notre Dame de Paris is a catholic cathedral located on the Île de la Cité in Paris, France lead by the Archbishop André Vingt-Trois. The Wikipedia article looks at the history, architecture, and reception of the cathedral and includes a timeline of significant events. This famous cathedral is “one of the finest examples of French Gothic architecture”. The cathedral has some of the finest stained glass windows, beautiful rose windows, its gargoyles are recognizable around the world and it is one of the first buildings to use the flying buttress. The cathedral’s organ, with its 7, 374 pipes, is the most prestigious organist position in France; four organists currently hold the position. Another key feature is the 10 bells that have historically played an important role in the city to not only sound during mass and special occasions, but also to warn people of attacks during wars, including the Second World War. Archeological Crypts are found under the cathedral, established in 1965 to protect ruins that the cathedral sits on.

In 1160, Bishop Maurice de Sully ordered the destruction of Saint-Étienne, the Paris Cathedral at the time, and the construction of Notre Dame de Paris. Construction officially started in 1163 under King Louis VII and was completed in 1345. In 1548 Huguenots rioting destroyed some of the cathedral which led Louis XIV and Louis XV to renovate it. During the French Revolution the cathedral was rededicated to the Cult of Reason and was used to store food. In 1845 it was restored again by Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Lassus and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. During the Second World War the cathedral was damaged some more and in 1991 it underwent its last restoration project. Although many items from the cathedral’s treasury have been lost or stolen it still is house to the crown of thorns, a piece of the cross, and one of the holy nails, relics that are of utmost importance in the catholic religion.

===Encyclopedia Britannica Summary ===

Notre Dame de Paris or Notre Dame Cathedral is a famous Gothic cathedral at the east end of the Île de la Cité in Paris, France. It is built on the same site as two previous basilicas whose ruins were used to build Notre Dame. Bishop Maurice de Sully ordered the construction of Notre Dame in 1160 and in 1163 Pope Alexander III laid the foundation stone. By 1250 the nave, western façade, and choir were constructed, the rest took over one hundred years to complete. The architecture of Notre Dame includes flying buttresses, two massive towers on the west side of the cathedral, three rose windows, carvings of Old Testament kings, and an impressive nave that includes double aisles and square chapels.

Notre Dame was damaged and lacked proper care for quite a few centuries and was almost destroyed after the French Revolution, but Napoleon saved it by being crowned emperor in the cathedral. The cathedral was restored in the nineteenth century by E.-E. Viollet-le-Duc. Notre Dame was made even more famous by Victor Hugo, a French writer who’s novel Notre-Dame de Paris (1831) takes place in and around the cathedral.

Content Comparison
By looking at the Wikipedia article compared to the Encyclopedia Britannica article one can see that at an initial glance an obvious difference is the lengths. The Wikipedia article is longer and has headings and sub-headings, whereas the Encyclopedia Britannica article only has two main headings and is much shorter. Being shorter, the Encyclopedia Britannica article did not have as much information at the Wikipedia article. The Encyclopedia Britannica article did not talk about the cathedrals organs or bells, did not discuss the Notre Dame treasury, did not mention the fact that it was a catholic cathedral, and it did not have a timeline of important events surrounding the cathedral. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica article went a lot more into detail about the architecture of Notre Dame than the Wikipedia article did.

There were also some discrepancies between the two articles. Whereas the Wikipedia article said that the cathedral was built on the ruins of one earlier church, the Encyclopedia Britannica article said it was built over the ruins of two earlier churches and makes no mention of the churches being destroyed for the purpose of construction of the cathedral. Also, the Encyclopedia Britannica article says that it was Pope Alexander III who placed the foundation stone, whereas in the Wikipedia article it says they were unsure whether it was the Pope or Bishop Maurice de Sully. Finally, Encyclopedia Britannica only mentions one architect, E.-E. Viollet-le-Duc, as having restored the cathedral in the mid-nineteenth century whereas the Wikipedia article says that it was two architects, Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Lassus and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc.

One can also compare some features of the articles. One feature is that the Wikipedia article has a basic information box on the right side of the article that gives researchers quick facts about Notre Dame de Paris, the Encyclopedia Britannica article does not have that. The articles do have quite a few similar features. Both have tools that allow users to print, export, and cite the article, they both have pictures of the cathedral, including close ups of certain aspects of it (such as the gargoyles) and they both have extra sources for further information on the cathedral, such as sources on people related to the cathedral, architectural resources, and historical links. Finally, both articles have hyperlinks throughout them that link the reader to names, places, and architectural key terms related to Notre Dame.

Wikipedia Article
The reference list for the Notre Dame de Paris Wikipedia article is actually quite short. Considering the content, the article only has fifteen references. Although many of the references are quite recent a few of them date back to the 1990s and 1980s and one is dated from 1902. Also, one reference has no date of publication or retrieval date. The misinformation and outdated sources makes the reference list questionable. Also, one of the references is only a link to the main page of a website and the majority of the references are not done in proper citation format. The reference list is not very thorough and is missing key information and relevant sources.

There are over 1, 500 contributors to the article including numerous anonymous contributors and bots. Many of the contributors have an exhaustive list of contributions to numerous articles on history, arts, and architecture. One can assume that those contributors have a vast amount of resources and knowledge on the aspects they contributed to the article. It should also be noted that on the edit page there seems to have been vandalism on the article by anonymous contributors that was fixed by registered Wikipedia contributors.

The “see also section” (for further reading) has a link to a school and museum connected to the cathedral, an article on the tallest buildings in Paris, and a link to a page on Mariam Churches. Considering the historical and architectural content related to the cathedral, it would seem appropriate that the further reading list would include more articles on those two aspects. There are also a few external links that brings readers to the official Notre Dame de Paris website and websites on the music and organ found in the cathedral. Considering how the article goes into detail about the organ, those links are appropriate due to the content discussed, but the external links list could benefit from some links on the historical and architectural aspects of the cathedral.

Encyclopedia Britannica Article
Typically, encyclopedia articles are supposed to be facts, so it comes as no surprise that there is no link to references used for the article. However, some people might find that references are important seeing as the Encyclopedia Britannica did not come up with the facts. A few sources could be helpful for researchers.

Under the “contributors” tab in the Encyclopedia Britannica article the only contributors listed are “The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica”, but if one looks at the history of the article one can see that there were four editors who contributed to the article. Of the four, two of them have no biographical information other than the fact that they are content analyst, one of the contributors, Alison Eldridge, has a list of articles she contributed too, most related to famous American actors, and one editor, Heather Campbell, has her field of expertise listed as “European Geography and History; French” and has contributed to many articles on this topic. Other than Heather Campbell, one cannot be sure what the expertise of the other contributors are, however, they do have certain credibility as they are part of the Encyclopedia Britannica editing team which merits credibility because of the encyclopedia’s reputation.

The further reading list is well done and quite complete. There are two sections. The first is “Related Articles, Ebooks, & More” which goes over Encyclopedia Britannica articles in which Notre Dame de Paris is referenced, goes over people, places, others, and quick facts that are related to and about the cathedral found in Encyclopedia Britannica, and finally it provides a list of ebooks, primary sources, and magazines that are about the many aspects of the cathedral, from its history to its architecture. The second section is the “Web Links” section which provides a list of four websites about the cathedral.

Assessment
This section will assess the quality of the Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Wikipedia article based on the criteria for evaluating Wikipedia articles found in the online brochure “Evaluating Wikipedia Article Quality”.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article is a good article for a variety of reasons. First of all, although it is a short article, it gets right to the point and clearly discusses the history of Notre Dame de Paris and its architectural importance. Second of all, the entry has a flow to it; it begins by discussing what the topic is, followed by a brief history, elaborates on the architectural aspects, and ends by discussing the most recent historical events. The entry is neutral and has no bias and there is a good balance among the different point discussed. Furthermore, it is also a good article because it provides a comprehensive list of sources for further research. True to the traditional form of encyclopedia entries the article is short, gets to the main information about the topic, and provides further reading for people who want to know more about the topic. Also, the page allows for users to do various things such as cite the article, view the article history, e-mail or share the article, and even suggest edits to the Encyclopedia Britannica editing team. Although not all the contributors have well developed biographies that would give them authority on the topic, the fact that they are part of the Encyclopedia Britannica team gives them credibility. In fact, since the entry is in the Encyclopedia Britannica it already has a sense of credibility and currency as it is found in an encyclopedia with a good reputation. An article in a reputable and published encyclopedia comes with the assumption that the entry was written by experts either in the field or in general research who are able to find the facts and present them in a concise manner.

The Wikipedia article although it has some good things in it, overall is an entry that needs to be worked on. The lead section is well done and goes over what will be further elaborated in the article, the article has a good flow and is well structured with headings and sub-headings, and there is a good balance among the points discussed. Furthermore, there is no bias throughout the article and many of the contributors are registered Wikipedia users who have contributed too many articles with similar topics. Although the article has a lot of good qualities, it is lacking in terms of sources. Wikipedia articles, since they are not necessarily done by experts and because of the reputation of the encyclopedia, need good sources to have a certain authority. Right away when someone accesses the article there is a banner from Wikipedia stating: “This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)”. Essentially, this means that a lot of the information in the article has no citation. The talk page does not address this issue and focuses mainly on what content should or should not be included and the wording of certain sections. Further to this, the article was a featured article candidate, but because of the lack of sources and inline citation it never got the status. Also, it is part of many WikiProjects (Paris/France, Architecture, Historic sites, and Pipe Organ) and in all the projects it has top or high importance, yet the article is rated C-class because “The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial”. . Although inline citations have been added since 2009 when the banner was put up, the sources are still not up to date or fully relevant to the article as discussed under the “References, Contributors and Further Reading” section above. Furthermore, there are not a lot of sources considering the length and topic of the article. Improvement is needed to get a more substantial list of sources and to ensure that the inline citations are properly done.

Although the Encyclopedia Britannica article is shorter in length, it does cover the topic matter effectively and is by nature a credible and current resource. The Wikipedia article on the other hand could use some improvement with its inline citations and list of references. However, if the citations do get fixed and more credible sources are added to the Wikipedia article it has the potential of being more informative and have a better balance of topics discussed than the Encyclopedia Britannica entry because as noted in the “Content Comparison” section above, the content covered in the Wikipedia article is a lot more diverse and specific.

Additional Resources
Bottineau, Yves. Notre-Dame de Paris and the Sainte-Chapelle. London: Allen and Unwin, 1967.

Cathédral Notre Dame de Paris. Home page. 11 Nov. 2013. .

Callet, Patrick, et al. Natural Lighting, Gilts and Polychromy of Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral. Switzerland: The Eurographic Association, 2010.

Clark, William W. Medieval Cathedrals. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2006.

Erlande-Brandenburg, Alain. Notre-Dame de Paris. New York: Abradale, 1999.

Harris, Joseph A. “Celebrating Our Lady of Paris: Notre Dame has been the city’s grand epicenter for 850 years. (letter from PARIS).” The American Spectator 46(5) (2013): 30.

Murray, Stephen. “Notre-Dame of Paris and the Anticipation of Gothic.” The Art Bulletin 80(2) (1998): 229-253.

Smith, Rollin. Louis Vierne: organist of Notre-Dame Cathedral. Hillsdale, N.Y.: Pendragon Press, 1999.

Temko, Allan. Notre-Dame of Paris. New York: Viking Press, 1955.

Wright, Craig M. Music and Ceremony at Notre Dame of Paris, 500-1550. Cambridge Englang ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.