User:Rena0173/sandbox

Assignment 1 - Research Report on Wikipedia Comparison
For this assignment I started by listing a few subjects down in my notebook. The subjects I listed were; Oscar Wilde, Guardian of the Galaxy, John F. Kennedy and Jane Austen. I then searched all four subjects on both Wikipedia and Britannica encyclopaedias. I soon realised that some of these subjects weren’t appropriate for this assignment. Guardians of the Galaxy for example did not carry enough information to be a good candidate. I determined that John F. Kennedy was too broad of a subject because there is too many sub-categories linked to it. So I ultimately picked one of the sub-categories, which is the assassination of John F. Kennedy. After looking and comparing the information from both encyclopaedias I finally composed a more appropriate list for this assignment. The subjects I chose are the following; assassination of John F. Kennedy, Batman, Richard I of England and Oscar Wilde.

Britannica encyclopedia is my “go to” encyclopedia, when researching for projects and essays. Britannica is a reliable source that provides condensed and detailed information. The information is to the point and unlike Wikipedia, the site is run by professionals. There was a few major differences when comparing Britannica and Wikipedia to one another. When searching broader subjects in Wikipedia a ton of references appear but references seem almost non-existent on Britannica. This is because Wikipedia is allowed to be edited by the public whether Britannica can only be edited my editors or employees from Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. Another difference was the amount of information and details included in the articles. Wikipedia is much more detailed and intensive but is all that information reliable? On the other hand, Britannica is to the point yet lacks details. If I were to choose which encyclopedia to use it would depend on what information I need and what I need it for? If it is for academic purposes I would use Britannica, if it was for personal knowledge I would take a chance and use Wikipedia.

In conclusion, I will be using Wikipedia and Britannica online encyclopaedias for this assignment. I believe both encyclopaedias show a very noticeable difference in character and this will hopefully help me throughout this assignment. The four subjects I chose are listed below in MLA format from both Wikipedia and Britannica websites.

The Assasination of John F. Kennedy
"Assassination of John F. Kennedy." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 8 Sep. 2014. Web. 9 Sep. 2014.

"assassination of John F. Kennedy." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 09 Sep. 2014.

Batman
"Batman." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Sep. 2014. Web. 9 Sep. 2014.

"Batman." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 09 Sep. 2014.

Richard the I of England
"Richard I of England." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Sep. 2014. Web. 9 Sep. 2014.

"Richard I." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 09 Sep. 2014.

Oscar Wilde
"Oscar Wilde." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 4 Sep. 2014. Web. 9 Sep. 2014.

"Oscar Wilde." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 09 Sep. 2014.

Summary of Wikipedia Article
Out of the four topics that I selected for assignment when I decided to concentrate on Richard the first or otherwise known as Richard the lion heart. The Wikipedia article on Richard the first touched on many different periods of time in his life. All the subtitles in the article concentrate heavily on what happened, therefore providing an excessive amount of details. The headings in the article are; Early life and accession in Aquitaine, King and Crusader, Legacy and Ancestor. All of these headings had multiple subtitles, some of which add up to eight. It would be much too difficult to summarize the entire Wikipedia article in one paragraph since there is an immense amount of information. It does provide all the information needed for personal research. The article clearly indicates dates, locations, persons and descriptions which are extremely useful.

Summary of Britannica Article
Encyclopedia Britannica also has an ample amount of detailed information on Richard the first. The article is very concise and straight forward. The article is divided in seven+ headings; Early Life, King of England, Sicily, the Holy land, Imprisonment, Return to England and Assessment. There is not an abundance of information which makes the article easy to read. The information is presented very clearly. Encyclopedia Britannica’s article on Richard the first provides insight on Richard’s childhood, when he becomes a King (which includes some of his achievements and failures), one of his largest triumphs during his crusades, a brief summary of his journeys to the “holy land”, his imprisonment and finally his inevitable death at the age of 42. This article makes information accessible and easy to find. It would be perfect for personal research and perhaps some academic research.

Comparing and Contrasting
Both articles are one in the same, they both carry roughly the same important information. Unfortunately some of the important information is hidden beneath useless facts. There was one significant difference between the articles and it was the amount of information under each heading. There are several subtitles under the main headings in the Wikipedia article, in total there are sixteen subtitles, five of which are not discussed in the Britannica article. Those five were under a separate heading called, Legacy. The subtitles are; Medieval Folklore, Sexuality, Modern Fiction, Media and Other Media.

To provide some perspective, the information under the subtitle, Childhood, which provides detailed information of Richard the first in his early years is 1027 words in length in the Wikipedia article. Although, in the Britannica article under the heading, Early Life, which provides a more concise version of the Wikipedia’s article is only 297 words in length. If someone were to need to know the date of Richard the first’s coronation, a reader (researcher) would most likely find this information with ease in the Britannica article. The Wikipedia almost seems overwhelming at first glance, due to the volume of information. These encyclopedias' are not meant to deliver enough information to write a ten page essay. The purpose of an encyclopedia, ironically given by Wikipedia is, “[…]to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us.” An encyclopedia is supposed to provide general information on different subjects. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be an essay within itself. Wikipedia has an exaggerated amount of potentially useless information, which ends up being overwhelming for the users. Whether Britannica presents concise and clear information which is easily retrievable because their table of contents is short and accurate.

Wikipedia
In the article of Richard the first on Wikipedia, there is an extensive list of “Further Readings” and a very long bibliography. There is thirteen titles in the “Further Readings” section and thirty-one bibliographic references. When reading through the bibliography nothing seems out of the ordinary. Many of the sources seem convincing. Unfortunately there was one thing I found strange, there was five titles from the same author. All these titles were dated 2-10 years apart and yet carried the same name. The fallowing are those bibliographic sources; 1.	Gillingham, John (1979), Richard the Lionheart, New York: Times Books, ISBN 0-8129-0802-3 2.	Gillingham, John (1989), Richard the Lionheart, Butler and Tanner Ltd 3.	Gillingham, John (1994), Richard Coeur De Lion: Kingship, Chivalry And War In The Twelfth Century, London 4.	Gillingham, John (2002) [1999], Richard I, London: Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-09404-3 5.	Gillingham, John (2004), "Richard I (1157–1199), king of England", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, retrieved 22 December 2009. I took the liberty to research the author, John Gillingham. John Gillingham is a well-known author and he did right all these sources, but why does Wikipedia have so many similar works from the same author. This leads me to the fact that, Wikipedia articles are written by many people, therefore information can be biased and is generally re-alliterated throughout the article. This makes the article obsolete. Anyone can write or edit articles on Wikipedia and just because there is a bibliography does not mean they actually used the source or used it properly.

Britannica
For the article of Richard the first in Encyclopedia Britannica the contributors to the article are clearly listed. The main contributor was Sir Geoffrey Wallis Steuart Barrow and he is a professor of Emeritus of Scottish History and Palaeography. His small biography on Britannica includes the university at which he teaches at and mentions the books he wrote. Britannica also includes a small list of other contributors to the article. The four other contributors are Gloria Lotha (content analyst and coordinator for Britannica), Deepti Mahajan (content analyst for Britannica), Amy Tikkanen (corrections manager), and the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. There is a long bibliography for this article but with the information above, it can be trusted that professionals went through the sources and used them appropriately.

Comparison
When comparing the information and both Wikipedia and Britannica it's hard to say which is better will bring the further analyze the references attached to the articles it is quite clear which one is better. Wikipedia is a collective of work written by many people across the globe, these people aren't necessarily professors or scholars. Wikipedia doesn't have a large filter so practically anyone can or post an article in the encyclopedia. On the other hand, Britannica is limited to their staff or perhaps they hire professionals to write their articles for them. Either way Britannica restricts who they allow to write their articles in their encyclopedia. Previously I mentioned that in the list of contributors there were the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. This may seem unreliable but there is a link page that brings you to a full description of who the editors actually are and how they contribute to Britannica Encyclopedia. The link allows readers/researchers to see that these editors work for Britannica and are not random users. Britannica is a reliable source compared to Wikipedia, the contributors are reliable on Britannica whether Wikipedia’s contributors seem non-existent.

Assessment
Wikipedia provides a comprehensive amount of information on Richard the first. I believe for personal research, Wikipedia is an easy way to find a quick answer. The article in question is not the most accessible and easy to navigate compared to the Britannica article on the same subject. This Wikipedia article has way too much information which seems to repeat itself. Normally I would use Wikipedia to find dates and small information that could be pertinent for personal research but if I had to find a specific date in this particular article I would stay clear. There is far too much information to sort through and to read it all would take me close to an hour. I would not take the time to actually find the answer to what I had in mind. I thoroughly enjoy history but Wikipedia articles would not be my first stop to learn more about my favourite moments in time. I do not trust Wikipedia since there are so many people that can change and edit nearly everything about the article.

When checking the history of the article, I noticed the volume of people change the article in the past few days. Before checking the history I was skeptical, I thought maybe there would be one or two small edits in the last month or so, but I was mistaken. In the last five days there have been nearly 10 and it, some of which were done in the same day by different people. This alarmed me, what did all these users change and why is it so easy to change the article? The last recorded edit to this article was made on November 2nd, 2014 at 9 AM. At the bottom of the history page for this article, it shows that over 500 edits have been made since it was published. New events that are lifted over the years are understandably added to the article but without a doubt there was not 500 new occurrences that happened regarding Richard the first.

In the past I have used Britannica as a quick and reliable source for small information I needed for personal and academic purposes. The article written by Britannica is satisfying because information is easy to find and you don't have to read through unnecessary facts. The article only has seven headings, all seven have simple, yet precise title names which make the article easy to navigate. The information provided in the article is to the point which is useful when searching for dates, names and locations. Another bonus is that the article is easy to read through because the information is condensed, there is no reputation and every sentenced is different and delivers new facts which keeps the reader interested in the subject matter.

Therefore, I believe that Britannica is the better encyclopedia of the two, it is very reliable and provides the right amount of information. There is a total of 1246 words in the Britannica article, and in the Wikipedia article there is roughly 9000 words. Britannica holds more definition of encyclopedia then Wikipedia. An encyclopedia should only have general information on a certain topic which allows readers for researchers to find quick answers to small questions. Britannica is much easier to deal with and is much more credible than Wikipedia. It is almost tragedy how much people use Wikipedia when it is well-known that they are unreliable. It was hard to compare the information in the articles from Britannica and Wikipedia because one provided concise information and the other had read too much useless information, which made it very hard to read. Both articles did talk about the same things but the Wikipedia article had so much more subtitles and information. The extra information that Wikipedia had, wasn't necessary and made the article hard to read and because of this extra information I would no longer consider the Wikipedia article an encyclopedia definition. The Wikipedia article turned out to be more of a essay then definition of Richard the first.

Further Reading - Works Cited
Asbridge, Thomas. "Talking To The Enemy: The Role And Purpose Of Negotiations Between Saladin And Richard The Lionheart During The Third Crusade." Journal Of Medieval History 39.3 (2013): 275-296. Humanities International Index. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Doyle, Jim. "Flori, Jean. Richard the Lionheart: King and Knight." Library Journal 2007: 98. Literature Resource Center. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Gillingham, John. "Richard The Lionheart: King And Knight." The English Historical Review 504 (2008): 1287. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Livingstone, Amy. "Clash Of Crowns: William The Conqueror, Richard Lionheart, And Eleanor Of Aquitaine : A Story Of Bloodshed, Betrayal, And Revenge." Medieval Review (2014): Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Usilton, Larry W. "Richard I." Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia (2014): Research Starters. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

"1157: King Richard I was born in Oxford, third son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was later known as Richard the Lionheart. Although he reigned for nearly 10 years, he was only in England twice -- a grand total of 160 days. He was away mostly on crusades." Western Morning News (Cornwall, England) 2014: General Reference Center Gold. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

"Birth Of Richard The Lionheart: September 8Th, 1157." History Today 57.9 (2007): 62. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

"Health Highlights: Feb. 28, 2013; Researchers Analyze Heart of King Richard 'The Lionheart' Medicare Pays Billions for Poor Nursing Home Care Slightly Increased Cancer Risk From Fukushima Disaster: WHO New Program Helps Students Get Exercise." Consumer Health News (English) 2013: General OneFile. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Richard I, Lionheart (1157–1199 C.E.). n.p.: 2013. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Richard The Lionheart Signs A Truce With Saladin. n.p.: Gale, Cengage Learning, 2014. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.