User:RM395/Course/Encyclopedia comparisons/tabbboooo

I compared wikipedia's article on serial killers to Icons of Horror and the Supernatural: An encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares (IHS).

Surprisingly, the Wikipedia article seemed a lot more formal than the encyclopedia entry. The encyclopedia starts with quotes from movies while Wikipedia begins with FBI information. The encyclopedia has a picture of Hannibal Lector (a fictional serial killer) while the wikipedia page has multiple photos of actual serial killers, and one painting (IHS has one picture while Wiki has 9). Both articles are quite lengthy, but IHS' is a lot longer (473-503). The language of the Wikipedia article is much more clear and concise, which means more to me, especially when attempting to learn or research the subject. I think the Wiki requirements have a lot to do with this. IHS is written in a more conversational fashion.

When discussing the origins of the term "serial killer", IHS simply claims it was "coined in the 1970s". Wikipedia is a lot more in depth about this part of the discussion, as the article talks about how the term actually appeared before the 1970s, despite different author's impressions. There is discrepancy within the definitions both provide, making it unclear (killer who kills two+ people vs. three people). It is important to be clear about that number, considering the amounts of people who will fall into that category and be labeled as such depends on that. In general, I noticed that IHS doesn't really go into different opinions on whatever concept they are discussing like Wikipedia does. If there is discrepancy, IHS states ideas without discussing the differences. It almost seems as if it is straight fact, while Wikipedia presents multiple sources on concepts, and allows you to make your own decision. Considering that especially, I definitely think Wikipedia is more accurate, which shows in the references and sources (wiki has 149+ while the encyclopedia has a lot less). IHS focus A LOT on representation in culture (aka films, books, art, etc) and much less on real serial killers. This makes reading the article really frustrating to me, someone who is focused on what serial killers in reality are like, rather than their fictional counterparts. This factor also makes IHS seem a lot less serious, and therefore a lot less factual. IHS even cites authors rather than authorities when discussing real serial killers. IHS does list a study that shows the top ten "characteristics" of serial killers, but these characteristics are more correlation than actual driving forces or factors (one study of 36 candidates vs. multiple studies that cover multiple issues involving those characteristics). Their list is literally about a few paragraphs or a page long, while Wikipedia's coverage of characteristics is very lengthy, going into a lot of depth about motives as well, which IHS fails to do. Characteristics are an incredibly important part of the discussion on serial killers, considering it is those characteristics that make them different from any other killer, or really, any regular human. By lacking in the coverage of this crucial aspect, it is clear that IHS is not truly focused on real serial killers but their fictional representations instead. Even the study mentioned before is eclipsed by Wikipedia's extremely thorough treatment of characteristics, which discusses an incredible variety of concepts, theories, ideas and actions. The Wikipedia article delves deep into the psychology of a serial killer, giving us an intimate look at what exactly they are and perhaps why. This is probably the most important factor in understanding serial killers, considering it usually is their marred psychology that makes them what they are, turning them from men to monsters. Understanding how they think is in my opinion one of the most interesting things about that subset of the population, and IHS barely provides any insight into it. One example is Wikipedia's even mentioning female serial killers as their own category, while IHS just lumps them in with the rest. This is important because female serial killers usually have completely different motives and psychological influences than men do, which is crucial in getting a thorough understanding of the subject. IHS also left out the Green River Killer (Gary Ridgeway) completely (which is the only one I noticed, and there are probably many more)!! I think that is crazy, especially when you are attempting to provide information that encompasses an entire subject, leaving out one of its' main subjects!

I honestly don't even want to keep exploring IHS in this report, because it is just ridiculous when compared to Wikipedia. Without a doubt in my mind, I would choose the Wikipedia article any day over IHS' article. The language itself is a huge factor in this, because I hate the style IHS is written in. When you are reading encyclopedias, you are looking for a direct, clear SOURCE of information. You are looking to gain some kind of insight on the subject, to come away actually learning something. Wikipedia's policies seem to provide language best suited for this purpose, that doesn't bog you down or isn't too wordy. Wikipedia also digs so much deeper into the subject, exploring so many facets of serial killers that make them who they are, and are central into providing a definition of them. IHS seems more like a compilation of popular culture products than an actual knowledgeable exploration into the subject matter, which is incredibly frustrating and dwarfs what the subject is about. Even though Wikipedia probably used a lot less words, they were clear, all-encompassing, fact-rendering words that completely eclipsed the many words IHS used to discuss the subject. In the terms of what I think an encyclopedia article should be, Wikipedia CLEARLY takes the cake on this one.