User:RM395/Course/Encyclopedia comparisons/thepresidenthal

Chess: Wikipedia (2013) vs Encyclopædia Britannica (1988)
By --Thepresidenthal (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Focus and Bias
The focus of the encyclopedia article and the Wikipedia page is surprisingly similar. Both the article and the page explain how to setup a game of chess, such as where the pieces start out on the board and how the queen starts on her respective color on the back rank. The objective of chess is depicted the same, being that one player is to checkmate the opposing player's king piece. How each piece moves about the board is also explained in both, but I did notice a lot more information involving movement on the Wikipedia page. Pictures are a big reason why that is true but I'll explain that a little later.

At first glance, there was no bias in neither the article or the page. But as I read and reread the article in the Encyclopædia Britannica I noticed a couple of things that weren't necessarily discussed on the Wikipedia page unless you count the history section on said page. The encyclopedia article deemed chess as a "gentleman's" game. It was depicted as a battle of wits between two men and this is not directly talked about on the Wikipedia page.

Accuracy and Thoroughness
Given the knowledge that I have about the game and history of chess, both articles were very accurate. Out of all the information that I read, nothing seemed to be false or misleading. In the encyclopedia article it merely mentions the objective, setup and movement of the pieces which is common throughout the game of chess and is pretty much universal. The Wikipedia page has more information than the article, but maintains the same accuracy.

A major factor that makes the Wikipedia page a little more helpful is how thorough it is. Both the page and the article have the same focus but explain each in a different way. In regards to the setup and movement of the pieces, Wikipedia excels tremendously. Whereas the encyclopedia article is only words, the Wikipedia page has pictures and diagrams explaining each minute detail. There is a picture showing where each of the pieces start out on the board and separate diagrams showing how each piece can move on the board.

Content and Detail
This is the section where the Wikipedia page completely outperforms the encyclopedia article. The Wikipedia page is stuffed with an immensely large amount of information about chess. The Wikipedia page has everything that the encyclopedia article has plus tons more miscellaneous information. As aforementioned, the article is only words and the Wikipedia page has pictures and diagrams, but that is not the only thing that is added. Wikipedia mentions the different world chess tournaments and their respective champions. It discussed the three special moves that can be done in chess such as, castling, en passant, and pawn promotion. It explains how tournament chess matches are timed and goes over the different clocks that can be used. It teaches one how to write chess notation for match-keeping and/or reference. It goes over the three different phases of a game of chess (opening, middlegame, and endgame), and the strategies and tactics that are fundamental to even mediocre chess players. If you thought that was it, you're wrong. The Wikipedia page also has a comprehensive history of chess dating back to its roots.

Also, it is notable that a Wikipedia page is FULL of links that connect articles together. So if you wanted to learn more about en passant, then you can click on it and expand your knowledge outside of the main chess page.

Overall Evaluation
Overall, Wikipedia is hands down the better medium to learn about the game of chess. The Wikipedia page about chess outperforms the encyclopedia article in every category--content, detail, accuracy, and thoroughness. The ability for almost any Wikipedia page to be edited and have information added and expanded by almost anyone allows for it to become as massive as it is now. In 1988, I would only know how the game is played and not its history and fundamentals. I wouldn't know that there are x number of world tournaments a year or past champions. The encyclopedia article, when compared to the Wikipedia page, looks vague and very brief. The Wikipedia page looks at every side, every aspect about the game of chess and displays loads of interesting information in such and easy-to-read, "internet-y" fashion. It's not 1988 anymore, it's 2013--if one wants to learn about something, they do so on Wikipedia.